One piece of the puzzle: Modeling vector presence and environment reveals seasonality, distribution, and prevalence of sandflies and Leishmania in an expansion area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent geographic spread of Leishmania infantum along the borders of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay has been highlighted. In our previous study, Lutzomyia longipalpis was found in 55 of 123 patches surveyed, and in some patches, sandflies were found at higher densities, forming hotspots. Based on the One Health approach, we investigated the seasonality of the vector, the presence of parasite DNA, and the environmental factors that contribute to vector and parasite dispersal in these previously described hotspots in Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil. Entomological surveys were conducted monthly for one year. Fourteen hotspots peridomicile and six intradomicile were sampled. PCR was used to assess the prevalence of Leishmania DNA in sandflies. Zero-inflated negative binomial regression was used to determine the association of micro- and mesoscale environmental variables with the occurrence and abundance of the three most abundant sandfly species sampled. A total of 3543 species were captured, with Lutzomyia longipalpis being the predominant species (71.78%) of the 13 species found. Evandromyia edwardsi, Expapillata firmatoi, Micropygomyia ferreirana and Pintomyia christenseni were reported for the first time in the region. NDVI, distance to water, precipitation, west-to-east wind, wind speed, maximum and minimum relative humidity, and sex were significant variables associated with vector presence/abundance in the environment. Vector presence/abundance in the peridomicile was associated with precipitation, altitude, maximum temperature, minimum and maximum relative humidity, west-to-east wind, wind speed, and sex. Leishmania DNA was detected in an average of 21% of Lu. longipalpis throughout the year. Vector abundance is concentrated in urban and peri-urban areas, with some specimens present in different parts of the city and some sites with high vector abundance. This distribution suggests that the risk of actual contact between humans and parasite vectors in urban areas during the epidemic period is associated with patches of peri-urban vegetation and then extends into urban areas.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".