ArticleInfectious diseases of poverty2026
Drone-based geospatial prediction modeling identifies Fasciola hepatica infection risk in the Cusco Highlands of Peru.
Article in Infectious diseases of poverty, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFascioliasis is a neglected infectious disease affecting agricultural communities worldwide, with the Peruvian Andes among the most severely affected regions. Identifying fine-scale environmental risk patterns could support targeted surveillance and control. We aimed to develop predictive models of Fasciola hepatica infection in humans and sheep using drone-derived environmental indices in a rural Andean community.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study in the Huayllapata community, Cusco, Peru. Demographic, socioeconomic, and georeferenced infection data were collected from households and livestock with fascioliasis diagnosed by stool microscopy. High-resolution multispectral and thermal drone surveys were performed in April 2023 to derive environmental, topographic, and climatic indices. Logistic regression, random forest (RF), XGBoost (XGB), and deep learning models were trained using literature-based or principal component analysis (PCA)-based variable selection strategies. Model performance was evaluated using standard and spatial cross validation approaches. Fine-scale probability surface maps were generated across the study area.
resultsHuman fascioliasis prevalence was 21.3% of households, while sheep prevalence reached 80%. Under standard cross validation, RF achieved the best performance for human infection using the literature-based approach (accuracy = 0.89, sensitivity = 0.99, specificity = 0.88), while XGB performed best using the PCA-based approach (accuracy = 0.85, sensitivity = 0.75, specificity = 0.85). For sheep infection, XGB achieved the highest performance (accuracy = 0.93, sensitivity = 0.65, specificity = 0.93) with literature-based variables and RF performed best under the PCA-based approach (accuracy = 0.85, sensitivity = 0.75, specificity = 0.86). Spatial cross-validation reduced accuracy and specificity across models but preserved high sensitivity. Probability maps revealed marked spatial heterogeneity in predicted risk within the community, with shifts in the location and magnitude of risk zones when spatial dependence was accounted for.
conclusionsIn this single Andean community, machine learning models integrating drone-derived environmental, topographic and climatic indices, successfully identified F. hepatica infection occurrence in humans and sheep. RF and XGB showed the most robust performance under spatial cross-validation, supporting the feasibility of UAV-based approaches for localized F. hepatica risk mapping.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.