Principal component analysis of socioeconomic factors and their association with malaria and arbovirus risk in Tanzania: a sensitivity analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Principal component analysis (PCA) is frequently adopted for creating socioeconomic proxies in order to investigate the independent effects of wealth on disease status. The guidelines and methods for the creation of these proxies are well described and validated. The Demographic and Health Survey, World Health Survey and the Living Standards Measurement Survey are examples of large data sets that use PCA to create wealth indices particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMIC), where quantifying wealth-disease associations is problematic due to the unavailability of reliable income and expenditure data. However, the application of this method to smaller survey data sets, especially in rural LMIC settings, is less rigorously studied.In this paper, we aimed to highlight some of these issues by investigating the association of derived wealth indices using PCA on risk of vector-borne disease infection in Tanzania focusing on malaria and key arboviruses (ie, dengue and chikungunya). We demonstrated that indices consisting of subsets of socioeconomic indicators provided the least methodologically flawed representations of household wealth compared with an index that combined all socioeconomic variables. These results suggest that the choice of the socioeconomic indicators included in a wealth proxy can influence the relative position of households in the overall wealth hierarchy, and subsequently the strength of disease associations. This can, therefore, influence future resource planning activities and should be considered among investigators who use a PCA-derived wealth index based on community-level survey data to influence programme or policy decisions in rural LMIC settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".