Understanding heterogeneities in mosquito-bite exposure and infection distributions for the elimination of lymphatic filariasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that individuals in the same community can be exposed to a highly variable number of mosquito bites. This heterogeneity in bite exposure has consequences for the control of vector-borne diseases because a few people may be contributing significantly to transmission. However, very few studies measure sources of heterogeneity in a way which is relevant to decision-making. We investigate the relationship between two classic measures of heterogeneity, spatial and individual, within the context of lymphatic filariasis, a parasitic mosquito-borne disease. Using infection and mosquito-bite data for five villages in Papua New Guinea, we measure biting characteristics to model what impact bed-nets have had on control of the disease. We combine this analysis with geospatial modelling to understand the spatial relationship between disease indicators and nightly mosquito bites. We found a weak association between biting and infection heterogeneity within villages. The introduction of bed-nets increased biting heterogeneity, but the reduction in mean biting more than compensated for this, by reducing prevalence closer to elimination thresholds. Nightly biting was explained by a spatial heterogeneity model, while parasite load was better explained by an individual heterogeneity model. Spatial and individual heterogeneity are qualitatively different with profoundly different policy implications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".