The influence of the environment and indoor residual spraying on malaria risk in a cohort of children in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have estimated the impact of the environment on malaria incidence although few have explored the differential impact due to malaria control interventions. Therefore, the objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of indoor residual spraying (IRS) on the relationship between malaria and environment (i.e. rainfall, temperatures, humidity, and vegetation) using data from a dynamic cohort of children from three sub-counties in Uganda. Environmental variables were extracted from remote sensing sources and averaged over different time periods. General linear mixed models were constructed for each sub-counties based on a log-binomial distribution. The influence of IRS was analysed by comparing marginal effects of environment in models adjusted and unadjusted for IRS. Great regional variability in the shape (linear and non-linear), direction, and magnitude of environmental associations with malaria risk were observed between sub-counties. IRS was significantly associated with malaria risk reduction (risk ratios vary from RR = 0.03, CI 95% [0.03-0.08] to RR = 0.35, CI95% [0.28-0.42]). Model adjustment for this intervention changed the magnitude and/or direction of environment-malaria associations, suggesting an interaction effect. This study evaluated the potential influence of IRS in the malaria-environment association and highlighted the necessity to control for interventions when they are performed to properly estimate the environmental influence on malaria. Local models are more informative to guide intervention program compared to national models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".