Annual costs of treating children aged 2–14 y by countries grouped by prevalence (see Table 3) and depending on the frequency of treatment given according to current WHO recommended thresholds [19] and the new three-tier thresholds proposed here.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Notes. The population estimates are for children aged 0–14 y from ref. <a href="http://www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000402#pntd.0000402-United1" target="_blank">[29]</a> converted to age range 2–14 y using the best approximation possible taken from the WHO Life Tables <a href="http://www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000402#pntd.0000402-WHO9" target="_blank">[32]</a> as follows. The number of person-years lived, <sub>n</sub>L<sub>x</sub> was applied to obtain total person-years lived from zero to below the age of 15 y (<sub>15</sub>L<sub>0</sub>) and from this was subtracted the number of person-years lived below the age of 1, one quarter of the person-years lived between 1 and 5, and one fifth of the person-years lived between 10 and 15, to obtain the proportion of the under-15 population who are at least 2 years old and 14 y or under: i.e. <sub>12</sub>L<sub>2</sub> = <sub>15</sub>L<sub>0</sub>−(<sub>1</sub>L<sub>0</sub>+0.25*<sub>4</sub>L<sub>1</sub>+0.2*<sub>5</sub>L<sub>10</sub>). The underlying data are provided in <a href="http://www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000402#pntd.0000402.s001" target="_blank">Table S1</a>. Note that the estimates of percentages spent on initially-infected individuals, and those initially infected with 10+ worms, are based on static prevalence, and do not take into account declining prevalence with re-treatment. A dynamic model would be desirable.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".