Evidence & Impact
Demonstrated outcomes, implementation outputs, and anticipated impact — clearly distinguished.
Featured study
Uganda pragmatic cluster RCT (2023–2024)
Comparison of VectorCam-supported vs conventional surveillance workflows in Adjumani and Mayuge districts. 48 village health team members · 240 households.
90%+Accuracy, evaluated categories*specified conditions
17s / 34.5sMedian processingVectorCam vs comparison
82SUS usabilityabove-average
LowerCost / Anophelesevaluated workflow
Provisional content: figures on this page are provisional until verified against the final study manuscript and approved reporting language. Study-specific results ≠ universal product performance.
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Design | Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (VectorCam-supported vs conventional workflow) |
| Setting & period | Adjumani & Mayuge districts, Uganda · 2023–2024 |
| Sample | 48 village health team members · 240 households |
| Outcomes | Classification accuracy (several categories), processing time, data completeness & timeliness, usability (SUS), cost per Anopheles processed |
| Limitations | [TBC from manuscript] Geographic/species scope, operator learning effects, reference-standard constraints, generalizability — to be completed from final paper |
| Impact claim | We do not claim VectorCam has reduced malaria incidence or mortality — no causal evidence presented. |
Publications
- [Placeholder] Peer-reviewed paper — in preparation, clearly labeled
- [Placeholder] Preprint / conference abstract — TBC
- Only list published work with citation, DOI & reporting period
Resources & downloads
- [Placeholder] VectorCam technical brief (PDF)
- [Placeholder] Uganda evaluation summary (PDF)
- [Placeholder] Data dictionary & integration guide
Collaborators: [TBC — list only confirmed research partners]. No fabricated grants, awards, or endorsements.