| Literature DB >> 24678602 |
Ali Arab1, Monica C Jackson, Cezar Kongoli.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malaria is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. There is currently conflicting data and interpretation on how variability in climate factors affects the incidence of malaria. This study presents a hierarchical Bayesian modelling framework for the analysis of malaria versus climate factors in West Africa.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24678602 PMCID: PMC3976358 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-126
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Figure 1Geographical map of average malaria rates.
Figure 2Annual malaria rates for the ten countries selected.
Mean values of the climate variables considered
| Benin | 10,002.91 | 10,109.64 | 27.42 | 1.74 | 291.16 | 6.20 | 101.96 | 6,871,646 | 0.11 |
| Burkina Faso | 9,676.74 | 10,088.75 | 28.07 | -2.28 | 192.49 | 5.96 | 136.49 | 12,169,430 | 0.09 |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 10,086.67 | 10,110.37 | 27.34 | 0.84 | 292.88 | 7.59 | 122.54 | 17,288,436 | 0.07 |
| The Gambia | 10,079.86 | 9,977.20 | 27.29 | 2.80 | 230.65 | 5.59 | 96.65 | 1,414,390 | 0.16 |
| Ghana | 10,078.94 | 10,121.23 | 27.23 | 0.00 | 296.77 | 5.46 | 71.80 | 20,227,154 | 0.15 |
| Liberia | 9,780.00 | 10,089.00 | 25.90 | 0.00 | 274.00 | 1.00 | 11.00 | 2,647,139 | 0.23 |
| Mali | 9,685.94 | 10,098.72 | 27.89 | 0.35 | 185.21 | 5.84 | 89.10 | 10,345,394 | 0.06 |
| Senegal | 10,102.72 | 10,124.10 | 26.53 | 12.14 | 237.63 | 4.08 | 86.05 | 11,032,891 | 0.10 |
| Sierra Leone | 9,980.27 | 10,102.76 | 28.52 | 15.16 | 287.20 | 5.03 | 1796.56 | 5,170,957 | 0.06 |
| Togo | 9,884.56 | 10,108.77 | 27.35 | 2.66 | 251.75 | 5.50 | 112.63 | 4,851,532 | 0.09 |
Posterior results for the constant regression coefficients
| Intercept | -2.728 | 0.0444 | (-2.814, -2.642) |
| Mstpr | 0.0869 | 0.041 | (0.0067, 0.1674) |
| Msepr | -0.114 | 0.0184 | (-0.149, -0.0768) |
| Mtmp | -0.2034 | 0.02514 | (-0.2528, -0.1545) |
| Dtpav | 0.0615 | 0.0407 | (-0.0184, 0.1416) |
| Mvp | 0.1544 | 0.0432 | (0.0705, 0.2402) |
| Dp | -0.1162 | 0.0203 | (-0.1556, -0.0761) |
| Totp | -0.1055 | 0.0377 | (-0.1808, -0.0325) |
(columns from left to right: mean posterior, posterior standard deviation, 95% credible interval) for Model 1 (M1).
Figure 3Geographical map of posterior mean results for the spatially-varying linear trend coefficient.
Figure 4Geographical map of posterior standard deviation results for the spatially-varying linear trend coefficient.
Figure 5Geographical map of posterior mean results for the spatially-varying quadratic trend coefficient.
Figure 6Geographical map of posterior standard deviation results for the spatially- varying quadratic trend coefficient.
Posterior results for the constant regression coefficients
| Intercept | -2.537 | 0.025 | (-2.586, -2.489) |
| Mstpr | 0.032 | 0.033 | (-0.033, 0.097) |
| Msepr | -0.1401 | 0.0177 | (-0.174, -0.1043) |
| Mtmp | -0.1685 | 0.0193 | (-0.2055, -0.1302) |
| Dtpav | 0.0505 | 0.0345 | (-0.017, 0.1187) |
| Mvp | 0.298 | 0.0299 | (0.24, 0.357) |
| Dp | -0.159 | 0.0176 | (-0.194, -0.125) |
| Totp | -0.053 | 0.0284 | (-0.1095, 0.002) |
(columns from left to right: mean posterior, posterior standard deviation, 95% credible interval) for Model 3 (M3; ie, constant trend term).