4.4 Article

Bayesian geostatistical modelling for mapping schistosomiasis transmission

期刊

PARASITOLOGY
卷 136, 期 13, 页码 1695-1705

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S003118200900599X

关键词

Schistosomiasis; Schistosoma mansoni; Bayesian geostatistics; non-stationarity; overdispersion; zero-inflated model; infection intensity; Cote d'Ivoire

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [3252B0-102136, PBBSB-109011, PPOOB-102883, PPOOB-119129]
  2. Novartis Foundation
  3. Roche Research Foundation
  4. University of Queensland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Progress has been made in mapping and predicting the risk of schistosomiasis using Bayesian geostatistical inference. Applications primarily, focused on risk profiling of prevalence rather than infection intensity,, although the latter is particularly important for morbidity control. In this review, the Underlying assumptions used in a study mapping Schistosoma mansoni infection intensity in East Africa are examined. We argue that the assumption of stationarity needs to be relaxed, and that the negative binomial assumption might result in misleading inference because of a high number of excess zeros (individuals Without an infection). We developed a Bayesian geostatistical zero-inflated (ZI) regression model that assumes a non-stationary spatial process. Our model is validated with a high-quality, georeferenced database from western Cote d'Ivoire, consisting of demographic, environmental, parasitological and socio-economic data. Nearly 40% of the 3818 participating schoolchildren were infected with S. mansoni, and the Mean egg count an-long infected children was 162 eggs per gram of stool (EPG), ranging between 24 and 6768 EPG. Compared to a negative binomial and ZI Poisson and negative binomial models, the Bayesian non-stationary ZI negative binomial model showed a better fit to the data. We conclude that geostatistical ZI models produce more accurate maps Of helminth infection intensity, than the spatial negative binomial ones.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据