METHODS: We assembled 1155 geographical records of yellow fever virus infection in people from 1970 to 2016. We used a Poisson point process boosted regression tree model that explicitly incorporated environmental and biological explanatory covariates, vaccination coverage, and spatial variability in disease reporting rates to predict the relative risk of apparent yellow fever virus infection at a 5 × 5 km resolution across all risk zones (47 countries across the Americas and Africa). We also used the fitted model to predict the receptivity of areas outside at-risk zones to the introduction or reintroduction of yellow fever transmission. By use of previously published estimates of annual national case numbers, we used the model to map subnational variation in incidence of yellow fever across at-risk countries and to estimate the number of cases averted by vaccination worldwide.

FINDINGS: Substantial international and subnational spatial variation exists in relative risk and incidence of yellow fever as well as varied success of vaccination in reducing incidence in several high-risk regions, including Brazil, Cameroon, and Togo. Areas with the highest predicted average annual case numbers include large parts of Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan, where vaccination coverage in 2016 was estimated to be substantially less than the recommended threshold to prevent outbreaks. Overall, we estimated that vaccination coverage levels achieved by 2016 avert between 94 336 and 118 500 cases of yellow fever annually within risk zones, on the basis of conservative and optimistic vaccination scenarios. The areas outside at-risk regions with predicted high receptivity to yellow fever transmission (eg, parts of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand) were less extensive than the distribution of the main urban vector, A aegypti, with low receptivity to yellow fever transmission in southern China, where A aegypti is known to occur.

INTERPRETATION: Our results provide the evidence base for targeting vaccination campaigns within risk zones, as well as emphasising their high effectiveness. Our study highlights areas where public health authorities should be most vigilant for potential spread or importation events.

METHODS: Data were from the 10/66 Study. Individuals aged 65 years or older and without dementia at baseline were selected from China, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela. Dementia incidence was assessed over 3-5 years, with diagnosis according to the 10/66 Study diagnostic algorithm. Discrimination and calibration were tested for five models: the Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia risk score (CAIDE); the Study on Aging, Cognition and Dementia (AgeCoDe) model; the Australian National University Alzheimer's Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI); the Brief Dementia Screening Indicator (BDSI); and the Rotterdam Study Basic Dementia Risk Model (BDRM). Models were tested with use of Cox regression. The discriminative accuracy of each model was assessed using Harrell's concordance (c)-statistic, with a value of 0·70 or higher considered to indicate acceptable discriminative ability. Calibration (model fit) was assessed statistically using the Grønnesby and Borgan test.

FINDINGS: 11 143 individuals without baseline dementia and with available follow-up data were included in the analysis. During follow-up (mean 3·8 years [SD 1·3]), 1069 people progressed to dementia across all sites (incidence rate 24·9 cases per 1000 person-years). Performance of the models varied. Across countries, the discriminative ability of the CAIDE (0·52≤c≤0·63) and AgeCoDe (0·57≤c≤0·74) models was poor. By contrast, the ANU-ADRI (0·66≤c≤0·78), BDSI (0·62≤c≤0·78), and BDRM (0·66≤c≤0·78) models showed similar levels of discriminative ability to those of the development cohorts. All models showed good calibration, especially at low and intermediate levels of predicted risk. The models validated best in Peru and poorest in the Dominican Republic and China.

INTERPRETATION: Not all dementia prediction models developed in HICs can be simply extrapolated to LMICs. Further work defining what number and which combination of risk variables works best for predicting risk of dementia in LMICs is needed. However, models that transport well could be used immediately for dementia prevention research and targeted risk reduction in LMICs.

METHODS: We did a parallel, two-arm, prospective observational study of opioid-dependent individuals aged 18 years and older who were treated in Malaysia in the Klang Valley in two settings: CDDCs and VTCs. We used sequential sampling to recruit individuals. Assessed individuals in CDDCs were required to participate in services such as counselling sessions and manual labour. Assessed individuals in VTCs could voluntarily access many of the components available in CDDCs, in addition to methadone therapy. We undertook urinary drug tests and behavioural interviews to assess individuals at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-release. The primary outcome was time to opioid relapse post-release in the community confirmed by urinary drug testing in individuals who had undergone baseline interviewing and at least one urine drug test (our analytic sample). Relapse rates between the groups were compared using time-to-event methods. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02698098).

FINDINGS: Between July 17, 2012, and August 21, 2014, we screened 168 CDDC attendees and 113 VTC inpatients; of these, 89 from CDDCs and 95 from VTCs were included in our analytic sample. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. In unadjusted analyses, CDDC participants had significantly more rapid relapse to opioid use post-release compared with VTC participants (median time to relapse 31 days [IQR 26-32] vs 352 days [256-unestimable], log rank test, p<0·0001). VTC participants had an 84% (95% CI 75-90) decreased risk of opioid relapse after adjustment for control variables and inverse propensity of treatment weights. Time-varying effect modelling revealed the largest hazard ratio reduction, at 91% (95% CI 83-96), occurs during the first 50 days in the community.

INTERPRETATION: Opioid-dependent individuals in CDDCs are significantly more likely to relapse to opioid use after release, and sooner, than those treated with evidence-based treatments such as methadone, suggesting that CDDCs have no role in the treatment of opioid-use disorders.