MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970762869 · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-11861-y

Pareto rules for malaria super-spreaders and super-spreading

2019· article· en· W2970762869 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Laura Cooper, Su Yun Kang, Donal Bisanzio, Maxwell Kilama, Isabel Rodríguez-Barraquer, Bryan Greenhouse, Chris Drakeley, Emmanuel Arinaitwe, Sarah G. Staedke, Peter W. Gething, Philip A. Eckhoff, Robert C. Reiner, Simon I Hay, Grant Dorsey, Moses R. Kamya, Steve W. Lindsay, Bryan T. Grenfell, David L. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentMedical Research CouncilDepartment for International DevelopmentNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesBill and Melinda Gates FoundationOffice of Extramural Research, National Institutes of HealthInternational Development Research CentreWellcome TrustBurroughs Wellcome FundNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsMalariaPareto principleComputer scienceComputational biologyBiologyMathematical optimizationImmunologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heterogeneity in transmission is a challenge for infectious disease dynamics and control. An 80-20 "Pareto" rule has been proposed to describe this heterogeneity whereby 80% of transmission is accounted for by 20% of individuals, herein called super-spreaders. It is unclear, however, whether super-spreading can be attributed to certain individuals or whether it is an unpredictable and unavoidable feature of epidemics. Here, we investigate heterogeneous malaria transmission at three sites in Uganda and find that super-spreading is negatively correlated with overall malaria transmission intensity. Mosquito biting among humans is 90-10 at the lowest transmission intensities declining to less than 70-30 at the highest intensities. For super-spreaders, biting ranges from 70-30 down to 60-40. The difference, approximately half the total variance, is due to environmental stochasticity. Super-spreading is thus partly due to super-spreaders, but modest gains are expected from targeting super-spreaders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations72
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicMalaria Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207