Persons ‘never treated’ in mass drug administration for lymphatic filariasis: identifying programmatic and research needs from a series of research review meetings 2020–2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As neglected tropical disease programs rely on participation in rounds of mass drug administration (MDA), there is concern that individuals who have never been treated could contribute to ongoing transmission, posing a barrier to elimination. Previous research has suggested that the size and characteristics of the never-treated population may be important but have not been sufficiently explored. To address this critical knowledge gap, four meetings were held from December 2020 to May 2021 to compile expert knowledge on never treatment in lymphatic filariasis (LF) MDA programs. The meetings explored four questions: the number and proportion of people never treated, their sociodemographic characteristics, their infection status and the reasons why they were not treated. Meeting discussions noted key issues requiring further exploration, including how to standardize measurement of the never treated, adapt and use existing tools to capture never-treated data and ensure representation of never-treated people in data collection. Recognizing that patterns of never treatment are situation specific, participants noted measurement should be quick, inexpensive and focused on local solutions. Furthermore, programs should use existing data to generate mathematical models to understand what levels of never treatment may compromise LF elimination goals or trigger programmatic action.
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 | 0.032 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".