Materials and Methods: Fifty individual fruit bats were captured using six mists net, from May to July 2017. The nets were set at dusk (1830 h) as bats emerge for foraging and monitored at every 30-min intervals throughout the night until dawn when they returned to the roost. The nets were closed for the day until next night, and captured bats were identified to species levels.
Results: All the captured bats were mega chiropterans, and Cynopterus brachyotis was the highest captured species, representing 40% of the total capture. Shannon-Weiner index is 2.80, and Simpson index is 0.2. Our result suggests that there is a degree of species dominance with low diversity in Lenggong Livestock Breeding Center.
Conclusion: We concluded that fruit bats are indeed, encroaching livestock areas and the species identified could be a potential source of infection to susceptible livestock. Hence, an active surveillance should be embarked on farms that border wildlife sanctuaries.
METHODS: A series of qualitative interviews were conducted with policy makers and healthcare providers in four vivax-endemic countries. Routine G6PD testing is not part of current policy in Bangladesh, Cambodia or China, but it is in Malaysia. The interviews were analysed with regard to respondents perceptions of vivax malaria, -primaquine based treatment for malaria and the complexities of G6PD deficiency.
RESULTS: Three barriers to the roll-out of routine G6PD testing were identified in all sites: (a) a perceived low risk of drug-induced haemolysis; (b) the perception that vivax malaria was benign and accordingly treatment with primaquine was not regarded as a priority; and, (c) the additional costs of introducing routine testing. In Malaysia, respondents considered the current test and treat algorithm suitable and the need for an alternative approach was only considered relevant in highly mobile and hard to reach populations.
CONCLUSIONS: Greater efforts are needed to increase awareness of the benefits of the radical cure of Plasmodium vivax and this should be supported by economic analyses exploring the cost effectiveness of routine G6PD testing.
Method: Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science (all databases) were searched by 2 reviewers until 29th October 2020. Articles were screened and narratively synthesized according to PRISMA-DTA guidelines based on predefined eligibility criteria. Articles that made direct reference test comparisons to human clinicians were evaluated using the MI-CLAIM checklist. The risk of bias was assessed by JBI-DTA critical appraisal, and certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Information regarding the quantification method of dental pain and disease, the conditional characteristics of both training and test data cohort in the machine learning, diagnostic outcomes, and diagnostic test comparisons with clinicians, where applicable, were extracted.
Results: 34 eligible articles were found for data synthesis, of which 8 articles made direct reference comparisons to human clinicians. 7 papers scored over 13 (out of the evaluated 15 points) in the MI-CLAIM approach with all papers scoring 5+ (out of 7) in JBI-DTA appraisals. GRADE approach revealed serious risks of bias and inconsistencies with most studies containing more positive cases than their true prevalence in order to facilitate machine learning. Patient-perceived symptoms and clinical history were generally found to be less reliable than radiographs or histology for training accurate machine learning models. A low agreement level between clinicians training the models was suggested to have a negative impact on the prediction accuracy. Reference comparisons found nonspecialized clinicians with less than 3 years of experience to be disadvantaged against trained models.
Conclusion: Machine learning in dental and orofacial healthcare has shown respectable results in diagnosing diseases with symptomatic pain and with improved future iterations and can be used as a diagnostic aid in the clinics. The current review did not internally analyze the machine learning models and their respective algorithms, nor consider the confounding variables and factors responsible for shaping the orofacial disorders responsible for eliciting pain.
METHODS: The concordance rate, sensitivity and specificity of the duplex ddPCR assay were determined and compared to nested PCR and duplex qPCR.
RESULTS: The duplex ddPCR assay had higher analytical sensitivity (P. vivax = 10 copies/µL and P. knowlesi = 0.01 copies/µL) compared to qPCR (P. vivax = 100 copies/µL and P. knowlesi = 10 copies/µL). Moreover, the ddPCR assay had acceptable clinical sensitivity (P. vivax = 80% and P. knowlesi = 90%) and clinical specificity (P. vivax = 87.84% and P. knowlesi = 81.08%) when compared to nested PCR. Both ddPCR and qPCR detected more double infections in the samples.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the ddPCR assay demonstrated acceptable efficiency in detection of P. knowlesi and P. vivax, and was more sensitive than nested PCR in detecting mixed infections. However, the duplex ddPCR assay still needs optimization to improve the assay's clinical sensitivity and specificity.