<b>Onchocerciasis: status and progress towards elimination</b>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Craw craw was first described almost 150 years ago. Since then considerable progress has been made in understanding the Onchocerca volvulus life cycle, its effects on the host (blindness, skin disease and epilepsy) and potential control measures. Early attempts were aimed at controlling the black fly ( Simulium ) that transmits the disease. This included the early use of DDT in some isolated foci in East Africa. This was followed in the 1970s by the Onchocerciasis Control Programme (OCP) of West Africa using other safer insecticides. In 1987, MSD (known as Merck & Co Inc. in the USA and Canada) announced the donation of Mectizan ® (ivermectin MSD) as long as was necessary for onchocerciasis control. This began a new chapter in the control of the disease including the creation of the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC) and the Onchocerciasis Elimination Programme for the Americas (OEPA). In the Americas, four countries have now been verified free of transmission of the disease by the World Health Organisation. In Africa where foci are considerably larger, APOC with its partners has succeeded in developing a control programme covering virtually all areas where the prevalence of the disease can cause serious effects. In some disease foci in Africa, elimination of transmission has been achieved. Following surveys on the Mali Senegal border, there was a move in 2009 to change the paradigm from control to elimination. Development has been slow but by 2030, there is hope that most countries will have stopped treatment and others will have completed post-treatment surveillance surveys although some foci in conflict areas will remain.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it