| Literature DB >> 24093726 |
Matthew E Cairns1, Kwaku Poku Asante, Seth Owusu-Agyei, Daniel Chandramohan, Brian M Greenwood, Paul J Milligan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malaria transmission is highly heterogeneous and analysis of incidence data must account for this for correct statistical inference. Less widely appreciated is the occurrence of a large number of zero counts (children without a malaria episode) in malaria cohort studies. Zero-inflated regression methods provide one means of addressing this issue, and also allow risk factors providing complete and partial protection to be disentangled.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24093726 PMCID: PMC3850882 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-12-355
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Malaria incidence in the Navrongo and Kintampo infant cohorts
| Number in cohort | 2,485 | 733 |
| Person-years at risk | 4,358.2 | 1,365.8 |
| Number of malaria episodes | 3,650 | 1,286 |
| Malaria incidence rate | 837.5 | 941.6 |
| (per 1,000 person-years at risk) | | |
| Number of malaria episodes per child | 1.47, 1, (0, 11) | 1.75, 1, (0, 10) |
| Mean, Median, (Range) | | |
| Variance in number of malaria episodes | 2.18 | 4.03 |
Children were followed from two months of age until 24 months in Navrongo, and from birth until 24 months of age in Kintampo.
Figure 1Number of malaria attacks experienced by 24 months of age. The figures show the number of malaria attacks experienced by 24 months of age in A) Navrongo and B) Kintampo, for all residents, and by area of residence (urban or rural).
Figure 2Time to first malaria episode according to place of residence. Figures show Kaplan-Meier estimate of time to first malaria episode in urban and rural areas for A) Navrongo and B) Kintampo cohorts. Tables show number of children remaining at risk at 6-month intervals. For clarity of presentation, the three rural areas in Navrongo (rocky highland, lowland rural, irrigated rural) were combined. Malaria incidence rates on the same time scale are shown in the Additional files.
Figure 3Poisson, negative binomial, ZIP and ZINB model fits to data - Navrongo.
Figure 4Poisson, negative binomial and ZINB model fits to data – Kintampo.
Log-likelihoods and Information criteria for the regression models
| | | | | |
| Poisson | −4072.6 | −3982.8 | 9 | 7983.6 |
| Negative binomial (NB) | −3983.3 | −3918.1 | 10 | 7856.2 |
| Zero-inflated poisson (ZIP) | −3934.0 | −3917.9 | 14 | 7863.8 |
| Zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) | −3916.8 | −3901.7 | 15 | 7833.3 |
| | | | | |
| Poisson | −1432.2 | −1291.7 | 13 | 2609.3 |
| Negative binomial (NB) | −1284.0 | −1213.2 | 14 | 2454.3 |
| Zero-inflated poisson (ZIP) | −1238.7 | −1212.3 | 24 | 2472.6 |
| Zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) | −1215.8 | −1197.5 | 25 | 2444.9 |
AIC = Akaike information criterion.
Zero-inflated negative binomial regression output for the Navrongo cohort
| 0.87 (0.78, 0.97) | 0.01 | 1.16 (0.46, 2.89) | 0.755 | ||
| | | | | ||
| urban | - | | urban | - | |
| rocky highland | 1.22 (0.95, 1.58) | 0.123 | rocky highland | 0.22 (0.02, 2.85) | 0.247 |
| lowland rural | 1.27 (1.08, 1.51) | 0.005 | lowland rural | 0.04 (0, 0.97) | 0.048 |
| irrigated rural | 1.27 (1.05, 1.54) | 0.016 | irrigated rural | 0.08 (0.01, 0.85) | 0.036 |
| | | - | | | |
| late wet | - | | | | |
| early dry | 0.99 (0.88, 1.10) | 0.8 | | | |
| late dry | 0.86 (0.77, 0.97) | 0.015 | | | |
| early wet | 0.94 (0.84, 1.06) | 0.305 | | | |
| 0.96 (0.90, 1.04) | 0.335 | - | |||
Table shows output from the zero-inflated negative binomial regression model. Incidence rate ratios are from the count component and odds ratios are from the logistic component.
CI = confidence interval; IPTi = intermittent preventive treatment in infants.
Zero-inflated negative binomial regression output for the Kintampo data
| 1.64 (1.21, 2.20) | 0.001 | 0.25 (0.10, 0.58) | 0.001 | ||
| 0.92 (0.79, 1.07) | 0.259 | | | ||
| | | | | | |
| (≥5 km vs. < 5 km) | 0.92 (0.78, 1.08) | 0.321 | - | | |
| 1.11 (0.93, 1.32) | 0.25 | 1.27 (0.51, 3.16) | 0.612 | ||
| | | | | ||
| Least poor | - | | Least poor | - | |
| Less poor | 1.51 (1.01, 2.24) | 0.044 | Less poor | 0.59 (0.23, 1.53) | 0.276 |
| Poor | 1.71 (1.18, 2.49) | 0.005 | Poor | 0.38 (0.14, 1.05) | 0.063 |
| More poor | 1.68 (1.15, 2.46) | 0.008 | More poor | 0.34 (0.11, 1.05) | 0.062 |
| Most poor | 1.65 (1.14, 2.41) | 0.009 | Most poor | 0.07 (0, 1.67) | 0.101 |
| | | | | ||
| Low | | | Low | | |
| Medium | 1.03 (0.84, 1.26) | 0.77 | Medium | 1.28 (0.57, 2.87) | 0.549 |
| High | 1.13 (0.92, 1.38) | 0.241 | High | 1.02 (0.43, 2.44) | 0.964 |
| | | | | ||
| Low | | | Low | | |
| Medium | 1.07 (0.87, 1.32) | 0.526 | Medium | 0.86 (0.37, 1.98) | 0.723 |
| High | 1.17 (0.95, 1.45) | 0.138 | High | 0.54 (0.19, 1.52) | 0.244 |
Table shows output from the zero-inflated negative binomial regression model. Incidence rate ratios are from the count component and odds ratios are from the logistic component.
CI = confidence interval; SES = socio-economic status.