Simulating the effect of evaluation unit size on eligibility to stop mass drug administration for lymphatic filariasis in Haiti
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Transmission Assessment Survey (TAS) is a decision-making tool to determine when transmission of lymphatic filariasis is presumed to have reached a level low enough that it cannot be sustained even in the absence of mass drug administration. The survey is applied over geographic areas, called evaluation units (EUs); existing World Health Organization guidelines limit EU size to a population of no more than 2 million people. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In 2015, TASs were conducted in 14 small EUs in Haiti. Simulations, using the observed TAS results, were performed to understand the potential programmatic impact had Haiti chosen to form larger EUs. Nine "combination-EUs" were formed by grouping adjacent EUs, and bootstrapping was used to simulate the expected TAS results. When the combination-EUs were comprised of at least one "passing" and one "failing" EU, the majority of these combination-EU would pass the TAS 79% - 100% of the time. Even in the case when both component EUs had failed, the combination-EU was expected to "pass" 11% of the time. Simulations of mini-TAS, a strategy with smaller power and hence smaller sample size than TAS, resulted in more conservative "passing" and "failing" when implemented in original EUs. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our results demonstrate the high potential for misclassification when the average prevalence of lymphatic filariasis in the combined areas differs with regards to the TAS threshold. Of particular concern is the risk of "passing" larger EUs that include focal areas where prevalence is high enough to be potentially self-sustaining. Our results reaffirm the approach that Haiti took in forming smaller EUs. Where baseline or monitoring data show a high or heterogeneous prevalence, programs should leverage alternative strategies like mini-TAS in smaller EUs, or consider gathering additional data through spot check sites to advise EU formation.
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 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 | 0.008 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".