Comparison of Novel Sandfly Control Interventions: A Pilot Study in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this pilot comparative study, we investigated and compared the effects of existing vector control tools on sandfly densities and mortality to inform and support the National Kala-azar Elimination Program (NKEP). The interventions included insecticidal wall painting (IWP), reduced-coverage insecticidal durable wall lining (DWL), insecticide-impregnated bednets (ITN), and indoor residual spraying with deltamethrin (IRS). Sakhua union with seven villages was the study area, which was the most highly endemic visceral leishmaniasis union in Trishal upazila, Bangladesh. Each cluster containing the different interventions included approximately 50 households. Study methods included random selection of clusters, collection of sandfly by CDC light trap and manual aspirator to determine sandfly density, and sandfly mortality determined by WHO cone bioassay test. Trained field research assistants interviewed household heads using structured questionnaires for sociodemographic information, as well as safety and acceptability of the interventions. Descriptive and analytical statistical methods measured interventions' effect and its duration on sandfly density reduction and mortality. We measured the relative efficacy of IWP on sandfly control against DWL, ITN, and IRS by the difference-in-difference regression model. We found that existing interventions were effective and safe for sandfly control with different duration of effect and acceptability. The relative efficacy of IWP for sandfly reduction varied by -59% to -91%, -75% to -81%, and -30% to -104% compared with DWL, ITN, and IRS, respectively, at different time points during the 12-month follow-up. These study results will guide the NKEP for selection of sandfly control tool(s) in its subsequent consolidation and maintenance phases.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".