Predicting malaria risk considering vector control interventions under climate change scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have projected malaria risks with climate change scenarios by modelling one or two environmental variables and without the consideration of malaria control interventions. We aimed to predict the risk of malaria with climate change considering the influence of rainfall, humidity, temperatures, vegetation, and vector control interventions (indoor residual spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLIN)). We used negative binomial models based on weekly malaria data from six facility-based surveillance sites in Uganda from 2010-2018, to estimate associations between malaria, environmental variables and interventions, accounting for the non-linearity of environmental variables. Associations were applied to future climate scenarios to predict malaria distribution using an ensemble of Regional Climate Models under two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). Predictions including interaction effects between environmental variables and interventions were also explored. The results showed upward trends in the annual malaria cases by 25% to 30% by 2050s in the absence of intervention but there was great variability in the predictions (historical vs RCP 4.5 medians [Min-Max]: 16,785 [9,902-74,382] vs 21,289 [11,796-70,606]). The combination of IRS and LLIN, IRS alone, and LLIN alone would contribute to reducing the malaria burden by 76%, 63% and 35% respectively. Similar conclusions were drawn from the predictions of the models with and without interactions between environmental factors and interventions, suggesting that the interactions have no added value for the predictions. The results highlight the need for maintaining vector control interventions for malaria prevention and control in the context of climate change given the potential public health and economic implications of increasing malaria in Uganda.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".