4.8 Article

Global Distribution Maps of the Leishmaniases

Journal

ELIFE
Volume 3, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

eLIFE SCIENCES PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.02851

Keywords

cutaneous leishmaniasis; visceral leishmaniasis; niche based modelling; boosted regression trees; species distribution modelling; disease mapping

Categories

Funding

  1. Richard Southwood Graduate Scholarship from the Department of Zoology at the University of Oxford
  2. Senior Research Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust [095066]
  3. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1053338, OPP1068048]
  4. Medical Research Council (UK) Career Development [K00669X]
  5. BBSRC studentship
  6. International Research Consortium on Dengue Risk Assessment Management and Surveillance (IDAMS, European Commission 7th Framework Programme) [21803]
  7. NIH National Library of Medicine [R01LM010812]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The leishmaniases are vector-borne diseases that have a broad global distribution throughout much of the Americas, Africa and Asia. Despite representing a significant public health burden, our understanding of the global distribution of the leishmaniases remains vague, reliant upon expert opinion and limited to poor spatial resolution. A global assessment of the consensus of evidence for leishmaniasis was performed at a sub-national level by aggregating information from a variety of sources. A database of records of cutaneous and visceral leishmaniasis occurrence was compiled from published literature, online reports, strain archives and GenBank accessions. These, with a suite of biologically relevant environmental covariates, were used in a boosted regression tree modelling framework to generate global environmental risk maps for the leishmaniases. These high-resolution evidence-based maps can help direct future surveillance activities, identify areas to target for disease control and inform future burden estimation efforts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available