LLIN Evaluation in Uganda Project (LLINEUP) – <i>Plasmodium</i> infection prevalence and genotypic markers of insecticide resistance in <i>Anopheles</i> vectors from 48 districts of Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In 2017-2019, we conducted a large-scale, cluster-randomised trial (LLINEUP) to evaluate long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) treated with a pyrethroid insecticide plus the synergist piperonyl butoxide (PBO LLINs), as compared to conventional, pyrethroid-only LLINs across 104 health sub-districts (HSDs) in Uganda. In LLINEUP, and similar trials in Tanzania, PBO LLINs were found to provide greater protection against malaria than conventional LLINs, reducing parasitaemia and vector density. In the LLINEUP trial, cross-sectional entomological surveys were carried out at baseline and then every 6 months for two years. In each survey, ten households per HSD were randomly selected for indoor household entomological collections. Results Overall, 5395 female Anopheles mosquitoes were collected from 5046 households. The proportion of mosquitoes infected with Plasmodium falciparum did not change significantly over time, while infection with non- falciparum malaria decreased in An. gambiae s.s, but not An. funestus . The frequency of genetic markers associated with pyrethroid resistance increased significantly over time, but the rate of change was not different between the two LLIN types. The knock-down resistance ( kdr ) mutation Vgsc -995S declined over time as Vgsc -995F, the alternative resistance mutation at this codon, increased. Vgsc -995F appears to be spreading into Uganda. Conclusions Distribution of LLINs in Uganda was associated with reductions in parasite prevalence and vector density, but the proportion of infective mosquitoes remained stable, suggesting that the potential for transmission persisted. The increased frequency of markers of pyrethroid resistance indicates that LLIN distribution favoured the evolution of resistance within local vectors and highlights the potential benefits of resistance management strategies. Trial registration: This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN17516395 . Registered 14 February 2017, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17516395
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".