MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2933063382 · doi:10.1186/s13071-019-3353-7

LLIN Evaluation in Uganda Project (LLINEUP): a cross-sectional survey of species diversity and insecticide resistance in 48 districts of Uganda

2019· article· en· W2933063382 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Amy Lynd, Samuel Gonahasa, Sarah G. Staedke, Ambrose Oruni, Catherine Maiteki‐Sebuguzi, Grant Dorsey, Jimmy Opigo, Adoke Yeka, Agaba Katureebe, Mary Kyohere, Janet Hemingway, Moses R. Kamya, Martin J. Donnelly

Bibliographic record

VenueParasites & Vectors · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesInternational Development Research CentreWellcome TrustWellcome
KeywordsAnopheles gambiaeBiologyPiperonyl butoxideVector (molecular biology)MalariaParasitologyAnophelesVeterinary medicineToxicologyEnvironmental healthEcologyPesticideZoologyMedicineImmunologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) are the principal tool for malaria control in Africa and are presently treated with a single class of insecticide; however, increasing levels of insecticide resistance threaten their success. In response to this threat nets have been developed that incorporate the synergist, piperonyl butoxide (PBO), which inhibits the activity of cytochrome P450s which is one main mechanisms of insecticide resistance, allowing resistance to pyrethroids to be reversed. However, data on the value and cost effectiveness of these nets is lacking. A large-scale cluster randomised trial of conventional LLINs and PBO-LLINs was conducted in Uganda in 104 health sub-districts (HSDs) in 2017-2019. Prior to the mass distribution of LLINs, a baseline entomological survey was carried out, the results of which are reported herein. Ten households from each HSD were randomly selected for entomological surveillance at baseline which included household mosquito collections. RESULTS: Prior to LLIN distribution entomological collections were carried out in 1029 houses across the 104 HSDs. Anopheles gambiae (s.l.) was the principal vector in all but 9 of the 71 HSDs that yielded vector species. Molecular analysis found An. gambiae (s.s.) to be the predominant vector collected. Plasmodium falciparum was detected in 5.5% of An. gambiae (s.s.) and in 4.0% of An. funestus (s.s.) examined. Infection rates of other plasmodium species (P. vivax, P. ovale and P. malariae) were lower with infection rates of 1.2% and 1.7% for An. gambiae (s.s.) and An. funestus (s.s.), respectively. The knockdown resistance (kdr) mutation Vgsc-L1014S was found at very high frequency in An. gambiae (s.s.) with the Vgsc-L1014F mutation at low frequency and the wild-type allele virtually absent. In An. arabiensis the wild-type allele was predominant. The resistance-associated alleles, Cyp4j5-L43F and Coeae1d were found at moderate frequencies which varied across the study site. Vgsc-N1575Y mutation was not found in any samples examined. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences between planned intervention arms was observed in vector densities, sporozoite infection rate or insecticide resistance marker frequency across the study site prior to the distribution of LLINs. Very high levels of kdr resistance were observed in all areas; however, the resistance-associated markers Cyp4j5-L43F and Coeae1d were found at varying frequencies across the study site which may have implications for the effectiveness of standard LLINs. Trial registration This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN17516395. Registered 14 February 2017, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17516395.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations65
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParasites & VectorsSame topicMalaria Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207