| Literature DB >> 15200848 |
Raymond J King1, Diarmid H Campbell-Lendrum, Clive R Davies.
Abstract
Approximately 6,000 cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis are reported annually in Colombia, a greater than twofold increase since the 1980s. Such reports certainly underestimate true incidence, and their geographic distribution is likely biased by local health service effectiveness. We investigated how well freely available environmental data explain the distribution of cases among 1,079 municipalities. For each municipality, a unique predictive logistic regression model was derived from the association among remaining municipalities between elevation, land cover (preclassified maps derived from satellite images), or both, and the odds of at least one case being reported. Land cover had greater predictive power than elevation; using both datasets improved accuracy. Fitting separate models to different ecologic zones, reflecting transmission cycle diversity, enhanced the accuracy of predictions. We derived measures that can be directly related to disease control decisions and show how results can vary, depending on the threshold selected for predicting a disease-positive municipality. The results identify areas where disease is most likely to be underreported.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2004 PMID: 15200848 PMCID: PMC3323104 DOI: 10.3201/eid1004.030241
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Land-cover classification used in the analysis
| Identification no. | Land-cover class label |
|---|---|
| 1 | Fragmented evergreen forest/grassland/savanna |
| 2 | Tropical evergreen rainforest |
| 3 | Montane evergreen rainforest |
| 4 | Submontane evergreen rainforest |
| 5 | Dry deciduous forest |
| 6 | Subtropical moist deciduous forest |
| 7 | Deciduous woodland |
| 8 | Fragmented evergreen forest/cropland |
| 9 | Deciduous forest/cropland—includes coffee |
| 10 | Fragmented evergreen forest/cropland—includes coffee |
| 11 | Cropland—includes coffee/woodland |
| 12 | Cropland—includes coffee/savanna/grassland |
| 13 | Cropland |
| 14 | Cropland/savanna/grassland/pasture |
| 15 | Cropland/ woodland |
| 16 | Fragmented montane forest/cropland |
| 17 | Grassland/savanna/woodland |
| 18 | Semiarid deciduous shrub |
| 19 | Semiarid thorn shrub/grassland/cropland |
| 20 | Flooded grassland |
| 21 | Flooded grassland/fragmented forest |
| 22 | Flooded evergreen broadleaf forest |
| 23 | Andean tundra/shrubland |
| 24 | Sparsely vegetated |
| 25 | Wooded wetland |
Figure 1Distribution of a) ecoepidemologic zones, b) elevation, and c) vegetation types in Colombia.
Figure 2Incidence of American cutaneous leishmaniasis per rural population reported in Colombia by year, 1980–2002 (data from Ministerio de Salud, Colombia).
Reported incidence of ACL, Colombia, 1994, and major parasite and vector species, by ecoepidemiologic regiona
| Region | Total municipalities | Positive municipalities (% positive) | Median, range of incidence in positive municipalities (/100 000 rural pop.) | Principal vectors | Principal parasite species |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon and Eastern Plains | 105 | 42 (40) | 62 (7–1,448) |
|
|
| Atlantic | 152 | 50 (33) | 57 (2–3,030) |
|
|
| Cauca River Valley | 248 | 56 (23) | 29.5 (3–944) |
|
|
| Magdalena River Valley | 496 | 136 (27) | 64.5 (4–6,662) |
| |
| Pacific | 77 | 25 (32) | 117 (6–1,789) |
|
|
aACL, American cutaneous leishmaniasis; pop., population.
Figure 3Geographic distribution of American cutaneous leishmaniasis incidence by municipality, 1994
Diagnostic statistics of predictive models for presence/absence of ACL transmissiona,b
| Type of model | Predictors used | Accuracy measures | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | Maximum κ | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | ||
| Single model for whole country | Elevation | 0.66 | 0.23 | 59.9 | 65.8 | 41.3 | 80.3 |
| Land cover | 0.70 | 0.28 | 53.4 | 75.7 | 46.9 | 80.2 | |
| All | 0.72 | 0.34 | 55.3 | 79.3 | 51.8 | 81.6 | |
| Combination of zonal models | Elevation | 0.70 | 0.28 | 53.7 | 75.2 | 46.5 | 80.2 |
| Land cover | 0.82 | 0.46 | 67.0 | 80.6 | 58.1 | 85.9 | |
| All | 0.84 | 0.54 | 62.8 | 89.1 | 69.8 | 85.6 | |
aACL, American cutaneous leishmaniasis; AUC, area under receiver-operator curve; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV are calculated at the probability threshold that gives the highest value of kappa. bFor all comparisons of observations against predictions, χ2 > 79.2, df =1, p < 0.0001. κ values are given by (proportion correct – Proportion expected)/(1- proportion expected), where proportion correct = (a + d)/n, and proportion expected = (a + b) x (a + c) + (c + d) x (b + d)/n2. a = true positive predictions, b = false positive, c = false negative, d = true negative, n = total.
Figure 4Performance of whole country model versus combination of zonal models. A. Receiver operator curve. Black line, single model for all Colombia (area under the curve [AUC] = 72.4%); gray line, combination of zonal models (AUC = 84.4%). Diagonal line indicates success expected on the basis of chance (AUC = 50%). B. κ value, representing skill at discriminating positive and negative municipalities, above the level expected on the basis of chance. Black line, single model for all Colombia; gray line, combination of zonal models. The probability threshold is the value on the continuous scale of predicted probability of transmission that is used as the cut-off for conversion into a categorical prediction of presence versus absence.
Figure 5A. Sensitivity (solid line) and specificity (broken line) across the range of threshold probabilities for predicting an endemic municipality. B. Positive predictive value (solid line) and negative predictive value (broken line) across the range of threshold probabilities for predicting a positive municipality. The probability threshold is the value on the continuous scale of predicted probability of transmission that is used as the cut-off for conversion into a categorical prediction of presence versus absence.
Accuracy measurement (area under the curve) for models generated using data from one region, assessed within the same region, and in other regions
| Assessment region | Model region | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon and Eastern Plains (%) | Atlantic (%) | Cauca River Valley (%) | Magdalena River Valley (%) | Pacific | |
| Amazon and Eastern Plains | 83.4c | 46.6 | 52.2 | 54.7 | 52.2 |
| Atlantic | 45.8 | 85.2c | 57.9 | 56.1 | 48.2 |
| Cauca River Valley | 56.3 | 51.7 | 82.2c | 60.2b | 50.3 |
| Magdalena River Valley | 66.2c | 56.7 | 67.7c | 82.7c | 52.2 |
| Pacific | 59.2 | 54.5 | 67.0a | 70.9b | 93.6c |
ap < 0.05, bp < 0.01, cp < 0.0001, for fit of predictions against observations.
Figure 6Predicted risk map for probability of transmission, based on the combination of the regional models.
Figure 7Agreement between predictions and observations. Light blue, correct positive prediction; light red, correct negative; dark blue, false positive; dark red, false negative.