| Literature DB >> 25888970 |
Eric Diboulo1,2,3, Ali Sié4, Diallo A Diadier5, Dimitrios A Karagiannis Voules6,7, Yazoume Yé8, Penelope Vounatsou9,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantification of malaria heterogeneity is very challenging, partly because of the underlying characteristics of mosquitoes and also because malaria is an environmentally driven disease. Furthermore, in order to assess the spatial and seasonal variability in malaria transmission, vector data need to be collected repeatedly over time (at fixed geographical locations). Measurements collected at locations close to each other and over time tend to be correlated because of common exposures such as environmental or climatic conditions. Non- spatial statistical methods, when applied to analyze such data, may lead to biased estimates. We developed rigorous methods for analyzing sparse and spatially correlated data. We applied Bayesian variable selection to identify the most important predictors as well as the elapsing time between climate suitability and changes in entomological indices.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25888970 PMCID: PMC4365550 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-015-0679-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Sources of environmental and climatic predictors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Terra | Day & Night Land Surface Temperature (LST) | 2001-2003 | 1 × 1 km2 | 8 days |
| Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Terra | Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) | 2001-2003 | 0.25 × 0.25 km2 | 16 days |
| Africa Data Disseminating Services | Rainfall | 2001-2003 | 8 × 8 km2 | 10 days |
| Health Mapper | Water Bodies (Permanent & semi-permanent) | - | 1 × 1 km2 | na |
Figure 1The distributions of the species-specific densities and rainfall throughout the study period.
Figure 2Geographical locations (top left) and surveyed locations with infected and uninfected mosquitoes.
Figure 3Monthly patterns of species-specific infectivity and rainfall.
Lag times and predictors selected by the variable selection
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Rainfall | Lag 3 | Lag 0 | Lag 0 | Lag 5 |
| Vegetation (NDVI) | - | - | Lag 0 | - |
| Day temp (LSTD) | Lag 4 | Lag 3 | Lag 1 | - |
| Night temp (LSTN) | - | Lag 5 | - | Lag 4 |
| Distance to water body | Yes | No | No | No |
|
| ||||
| Rainfall | - | - | - | - |
| Vegetation (NDVI) | - | - | - | - |
| Day temp (LSTD) | - | - | Lag 1 | Lag 2 |
| Night temp (LSTN) | - | - | Lag 1 | Lag 5 |
| Distance to water body | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Legend:
Lag 0: Average over the current month.
Lag 1: Average of the environmental covariate over the previous month.
Lag 2: Average of the environmental covariate over second previous month.
Lag 3: Average of the environmental covariate over the current and the previous month.
Lag 4: Average of the environmental covariate over the previous and the second previous month.
Lag 5: Average of the environmental covariate over the current, previous and the second previous month.
Posterior estimates obtained from the geostatistical zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) models
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| Intercept | -0.38 (-1.09, 0.46) | 1.85 (-0.11, 3.56) |
| Year2 | 0.24 (-0.64, 1.07) | -1.01 (-2.75, 0.39) |
| Rainfall | 0.87 (0.021, 1.71) | -2.33 (-4.67, -0.2) |
| Vegetation (NDVI) | 1.12 (0.63, 1.65) | - |
| Day temp (LSTD) | -0.78 (-1.56, 0.00) | - |
| Night temp (LSTN) | - | -1.3 (-1.9, -0.64) |
| Amplitude | 3.53 (3.50, 3.56) | 5.88 (5.83, 5.93) |
| Shift/phase | 0.648 (0.645, 0.653) | -1.159 (-1.163, -1.155) |
| Dispersion (r) | 0.45 (0.32, 0.63) | 0.93 (0.71, 1.24) |
| Spatial variation | 0.90 (0.33, 2.03) | 0.54 (0.22, 1.13) |
| Range (km)a | 1 (3, 83) | 5 (1, 35) |
| Temporal variation | - | 0.76 (0.48, 1.26) |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Intercept | -14.42 (-27.08, -3.57) | -11.06 (-18.80, -3.47) |
| Year2 | 0.24 (-0.64, 1.07) | 4.42 (-5.67, 11.66) |
| Distance to water body | -3.52 (-12.43, 3.51) | - |
| Rainfall | - | - |
| Vegetation (NDVI) | - | - |
| Day temp (LSTD) | 4.14 (-9.38, 21.23) | 3.21 (0.89, 5.89) |
| Night temp (LSTN) | 5.13 (-5.08, 14.83) | -1.99 (-5.57, -0.57) |
| Amplitude | 21.92 (21.69, 22.16) | 4.03 (3.96, 4.18) |
| Shift/phase | 1.06 (1.05, 1.07) | 2.25 (2.22, 2.27) |
aminimum distance in kilometer at which the spatial correlation remains important, BCI = Bayesian Credible Interval.
Figure 4Monthly patterns of observed and fitted indoor residual densities. (a) Averaged over spatial locations of An. funestus. (b) Averaged over spatial locations of An. gambiae.
Posterior estimates obtained from the geostatistical zero-inflated binomial (ZIB) models
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| Intercept | -6.65 (-14.8, -1.42) | -1.82 (-4.21, 4.14) |
| Year2 | -0.67 (-3.36, 2.10) | -0.92 (-4.32, 1.49) |
| Distance to water body | 0.10 (-1.54, 1.83) | - |
| Rainfall | -1.42 (-4.84, 1.51) | -0.16 (-2.06, 1.94) |
| Vegetation (NDVI) | - | - |
| Day temp (LSTD) | -0.25 (-3.53, 2.64) | -0.47 (-1.13, 0.08) |
| Night temp (LSTN) | - | 0.05 (-0.72, 0.81) |
| Amplitude | 7.25 (7.12, 7.38) | 2.50 (2.45, 2.54) |
| Shift/phase | -1.89 (-1.94, -1.85) | 2.72 (2.68, 2.75) |
| Spatial variation | 0.67 (0.22, 2.78) | 0.51 (0.22, 1.19) |
| Range (km)a | 0.05 (0.01, 0.44) | 0.05 (0.01, 0.27) |
| Temporal variation | - | 0.99 (0.53, 2.26) |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Intercept | -2.96 (-20.12, 11.79) | -11.45 (-26.0, -0.0015) |
| Year2 | 1.88 (-17.24, 15.2) | -3.25 (-18.15, 9.07) |
| Distance to water body | 11.5 (-7.67, 27.29) | 3.546 (-9.625, 11.39) |
| Rainfall | - | - |
| Vegetation (NDVI) | - | - |
| Day temp (LSTD) | - | - |
| Night temp (LSTN) | - | - |
| Amplitude | 11.09 (10.88, 11.30) | 4.03 (3.96, 4.10) |
| Shift/phase | 1.19 (1.15, 1.23) | 2.25 (2.22, 2.27) |
aminimum distance in kilometer at which the spatial correlation is significant at 5%, CI = credible interval.
Figure 5Monthly pattern of observed and fitted sporozoite rate. (a) Averaged over spatial locations of An. funestus. (b) Averaged over spatial locations of An. gambiae.
Figure 6Monthly EIR estimates of the median predictive posterior distribution at 250 by 250 m resolutions.
Figure 7Proportions of test locations falling in between 5% and 95% credible intervals. (a) Proportions of test locations with sporozoite rate falling in between 5% and 95% credible intervals. (b) Proportions of test locations with mosquito density falling in between 5% and 95% credible intervals.