MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512253183 · doi:10.1017/s0950268816002041

Surveillance for malaria outbreak on malaria-eliminating islands in Tafea Province, Vanuatu after Tropical Cyclone Pam in 2015

2016· article· en· W2512253183 on OpenAlexaff
Chim W. Chan, Harry Iata, James Yaviong, Morris Kalkoa, Sam Yamar, George Taleo, Rie Isozumi, Mariko Fukui, F. AOYAMA, Alysa Pomer, Kelsey N. Dancause, Akira Kaneko

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology and Infection · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceVetenskapsrådetKarolinska Institutet
KeywordsMalariaOutbreakIncidence (geometry)Tropical cycloneGeographyMedicineVirologyImmunologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The risk of malaria outbreak surfaced in Vanuatu after Tropical Cyclone (TC) Pam in March 2015. In June and July 2015 we conducted malariometric surveys on the islands of Tanna, Aneityum, and Erromango in Tafea Province, where malaria elimination had been targeted, to determine if malaria incidence had increased after TC Pam. No Plasmodium infection was detected by microscopy and PCR in 3009 survey participants. Only 6·3% (190/3007) of participants had fever. Spleen rates in children aged ⩽12 years from Aneityum and Tanna were low, at 3·6% (14/387) and 5·3% (27/510), respectively. Overall bed net use was high at 72·8% (2175/2986); however, a significantly higher (P < 0·001) proportion of participants from Aneityum (85·9%, 796/927) reported net use than those from Tanna (67·1%, 751/1119) and Erromango (66·8%, 628/940). A recent decrease in malaria incidence in Tafea Province through comprehensive intervention measures had reduced the indigenous parasite reservoir and limited the latter's potential to spur an outbreak after TC Pam. The path towards malaria elimination in Tafea Province was not adversely affected by TC Pam.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiology and InfectionSame topicMalaria Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207