Combining different diagnostic studies of lymphatic filariasis for risk mapping in Papua New Guinea: a predictive model from microfilaraemia and antigenaemia prevalence surveys

Table 1 Comparison of the Differentiated Scenario A models

Scenario A Model functions		Pre-MDA		MDA interaction	Post-MDA
Scenario A Model functions		RSE	AIC	MDA interaction	RSE	AIC
1	y = a(1 − e^−bx)	0.1187	− 65.86	δ	0.1789	− 6.69
1	y = a(1 − e^−bx)	0.1187	− 65.86	N	0.1991	− 3.27
2	y = a − be^−cx	0.1192	− 64.49	δ	0.1603	− 10.20
2	y = a − be^−cx	0.1192	− 64.49	N	0.1885	− 5.03
3	y = ae^−b/x	0.1218	− 63.30	δ	0.2036	− 2.56
3	y = ae^−b/x	0.1218	− 63.30	N	0.2198	− 0.11
4	y = ax^b	0.1209	− 64.04	δ	0.1400	− 14.53
4	y = ax^b	0.1209	− 64.04	N	0.2024	− 2.74

Differentiated Scenario A models evaluated, with their corresponding RSE and AIC values. The y variable represents the predicted antigen estimates, while x is the Mf prevalence as the independent variable. δ is the presence of MDA while N is the rounds of MDA (acting as indicators). Numbers in bold represent the lowest AIC values for pre- and post-MDA conditions, suggesting the best-fit models

ISSN: 1349-4147