Malaria Burden through Routine Reporting: Relationship between Incidence and Test Positivity Rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Test positivity rate (TPR)—confirmed cases per 100 suspected cases tested, and test-confirmed malaria case rate (IR)—cases per 1,000 population, are common indicators used routinely for malaria surveillance. However, few studies have explored relationships between these indicators over time and space. We studied the relationship between these indicators in children aged < 11 years presenting with suspected malaria to the outpatient departments of level IV health centers in Nagongera, Kihihi, and Walukuba in Uganda from October 2011 to June 2016. We evaluated trends in indicators over time and space, and explored associations using multivariable regression models. Overall, 65,710 participants visited the three clinics. Pairwise comparisons of TPR and IR by month showed similar trends, particularly for TPRs < 50% and during low-transmission seasons, but by village, the relationship was complex. Village mean annual TPRs remained constant, whereas IRs drastically declined with increasing distance from the health center. Villages that were furthest away from the health centers (fourth quartile for distance) had significantly lower IRs than nearby villages (first quartile), with an incidence rate ratio of 0.40 in Nagongera (95% CI: 0.23–0.63; P = 0.001), 0.55 in Kihihi (0.40–0.75; P < 0.001), and 0.25 in Walukuba (0.12–0.51; P < 0.001). Regression analysis results emphasized a nonlinear (cubic) relationship between TPR and IR, after accounting for month, village, season, and demographic factors. Results show that the two indicators are highly relevant for monitoring malaria burden. However, interpretation differs with TPR primarily indicating demand for malaria treatment resources and IR indicating malaria risk among health facility catchment populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".