Dengue, Severity Paradox, and Socioeconomic Distribution Among Afro-Colombians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical presentation of dengue ranges from self-limited mild illness to severe forms, including death. African ancestry is often described as protective against dengue severity. However, in the Latin American context, African ancestry has been associated with increased mortality. This "severity paradox" has been hypothesized as resulting from confounding or heterogeneity by socioeconomic status (SES). However, few systematic analyses have been conducted to investigate the presence and nature of the disparity paradox. METHODS: We fit Bayesian hierarchical spatiotemporal models using individual-level surveillance data from Cali, Colombia (2012-2017), to assess the overall morbidity and severity burden of notified dengue. We fitted overall and ethnic-specific models to assess the presence of heterogeneity by SES across and within ethnic groups (Afro-Colombian vs. non-Afro-Colombians), conducting sensitivity analyses to account for potential underreporting. RESULTS: Our study included 65,402 dengue cases and 13,732 (21%) hospitalizations. Overall notified dengue incidence rates did not vary across ethnic groups. Severity risk was higher among Afro-Colombians (risk ratio [RR] = 1.16; 95% Credible Interval [95% CrI] = 1.08, 1.24) but after accounting for underreporting by ethnicity this association was nearly null (RR = 1.02; 95% CrI = 0.97, 1.07). Subsidized health insurance and low-SES were associated with increased overall dengue rates and severity. CONCLUSION: The paradoxically increased severity among Afro-Colombians can be attributed to differential health-seeking behaviors and reporting among Afro-Colombians. Such differential reporting can be understood as a type of intersectionality between SES, insurance scheme, and ethnicity that requires a quantitative assessment in future studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".