MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160593313 · doi:10.12927/whp.2011.22225

Assessing the Progress of Malaria Control in Nigeria

2011· article· en· W2160593313 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jimoh Amzat

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld health & population · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalariaNigeriansArtemisininMedicineEnvironmental healthChloroquineBed netsMalaria preventionPlasmodium falciparumPopulationImmunologyHealth servicesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One third of the world's malaria deaths occur in Nigeria. It is doubtful whether Nigeria will meet the malaria control target of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, having failed to meet the Abuja target to halve the burden of malaria by 2010. This paper assesses the current malaria burden and progress toward malaria control. Substantial data were obtained from the 2008 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey and other secondary sources. Data showed that the malaria burden is still enormous because of inadequate control efforts. In 2008, only 17% of Nigerians owned at least one net, compared with 12% in 2003. Eight percent owned an insecticide-treated mosquito net (ITN), but only 6% of under-five children and 5% of pregnant women slept under an ITN. Only one third of under-five children with fever received antimalarial drugs, while one fifth of pregnant women took antimalarial drugs for prevention. Chloroquine is still the most common drug used in malaria treatment, despite its ban in first-line treatment since 2005. The paper concludes that scaling up home management of malaria and a community-centred approach to ITN and artemisinin-based combination therapy provisioning should be prioritized.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld health & populationSame topicMalaria Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207