How correlations between treatment access and surveillance inclusion impact neglected tropical disease monitoring and evaluation—A simulated study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) largely impact marginalised communities living in tropical and subtropical regions. Mass drug administration is the leading intervention method for five NTDs; however, it is known that there is lack of access to treatment for some populations and demographic groups. It is also likely that those individuals without access to treatment are excluded from surveillance. It is important to consider the impacts of this on the overall success, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of intervention programmes. We use a detailed individual-based model of the infection dynamics of lymphatic filariasis to investigate the impact of excluded, untreated, and therefore unobserved groups on the true versus observed infection dynamics and subsequent intervention success. We simulate surveillance in four groups-the whole population eligible to receive treatment, the whole eligible population with access to treatment, the TAS focus of six- and seven-year-olds, and finally in >20-year-olds. We show that the surveillance group under observation has a significant impact on perceived dynamics. Exclusion to treatment and surveillance negatively impacts the probability of reaching public health goals, though in populations that do reach these goals there are no signals to indicate excluded groups. Increasingly restricted surveillance groups over-estimate the efficacy of MDA. The presence of non-treated groups cannot be inferred when surveillance is only occurring in the group receiving treatment.
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 | 0.016 | 0.075 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".