Could vaccinating adults against malaria materially reduce adult mortality in high-transmission areas?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After a period of unprecedented progress against malaria in the 2000s, halving the global disease burden by 2015, gains overall in sub-Saharan Africa have slowed and even reversed in some places, beginning well before the COVID-19 pandemic. The highly effective drugs, treated nets, and diagnostics that fueled the initial progress all face some threats to their effectiveness, and global funding to maintain and increase their use over the long term is not guaranteed. Malaria vaccines are among the most promising new interventions that could accelerate the elimination of malaria. Vaccines are still in early stages of rollout in children, the age group (along with pregnant women) that has been the focus of malaria strategies for a century. At the same time, over the past decade, a case has been made, based largely on evidence from verbal autopsies in at least a few high-transmission areas, that the malaria death rate among adults has been greatly underestimated. Could vaccinating adults help to bring down the adult malaria mortality rate, contribute to reduced transmission, or both? A randomized trial of a malaria vaccine is proposed in Sierra Leone, a highly endemic setting, to shed light on this proposition.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".