MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607307934 · doi:10.1186/s12936-017-1792-1

Defining micro-epidemiology for malaria elimination: systematic review and meta-analysis

2017· review· en· W2607307934 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melanie Bannister-Tyrrell, Kristien Verdonck, Susanna Hausmann-Muela, Charlotte Gryseels, Joan Muela Ribera, Koen Peeters Grietens

Bibliographic record

VenueMalaria Journal · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalariaEpidemiologyEnvironmental healthPublic healthMeta-analysisDemographyMedicineTropical medicineImmunologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Malaria risk can vary markedly between households in the same village, or between villages, but the determinants of this "micro-epidemiological" variation in malaria risk remain poorly understood. This study aimed to identify factors that explain fine-scale variation in malaria risk across settings and improve definitions and methods for malaria micro-epidemiology. METHODS: A systematic review of studies that examined risk factors for variation in malaria infection between individuals, households, clusters, hotspots, or villages in any malaria-endemic setting was conducted. Four databases were searched for studies published up until 6th October 2015. Crude and adjusted effect estimates for risk factors for malaria infection were combined in random effects meta-analyses. Bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. RESULTS: From 743 retrieved records, 51 studies were selected, representing populations comprising over 160,000 individuals in 21 countries, in high- and low-endemicity settings. Sixty-five risk factors were identified and meta-analyses were conducted for 11 risk factors. Most studies focused on environmental factors, especially increasing distance from a breeding site (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.86-0.92, 10 studies). Individual bed net use was protective (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52-0.77, 12 studies), but not household bed net ownership. Increasing household size (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.15, 4 studies) and household crowding (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.48-2.16, 4 studies) were associated with malaria infection. Health seeking behaviour, medical history and genetic traits were less frequently studied. Only six studies examined whether individual-level risk factors explained differences in malaria risk at village or hotspot level, and five studies reported different risk factors at different levels of analysis. The risk of bias varied from low to high in individual studies. Insufficient reporting and comparability of measurements limited the number of meta-analyses conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Several variables associated with individual-level malaria infection were identified, but there was limited evidence that these factors explain variation in malaria risk at village or hotspot level. Social, population and other factors may confound estimates of environmental risk factors, yet these variables are not included in many studies. A structured framework of malaria risk factors is proposed to improve study design and quality of evidence in future micro-epidemiological studies.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.040
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations74
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMalaria JournalSame topicMalaria Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207