Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2026 Jul 14;6(7):e0006693. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0006693

Identifying age-common and age-specific factors of Plasmodium infection in Nigerian children under five: Application of a cluster-aware multistage selection framework to the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey

Woojae Choi 1, Yunhee Kang 2,*, Joonsup Yeom 3
Editor: Julia Robinson4
PMCID: PMC13367690  PMID: 42447146

Abstract

Despite developmental heterogeneity, children under five are often analyzed as a single group, obscuring age-related differences in Plasmodium infection. Using the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey data, we analyzed 2,914 younger children (6–23.9 months) and 5,553 older children (24–59 months) to identify age-common and age-specific factors. We applied a Cluster-aware Multistage Selection (CMS) framework integrating penalized regression, interaction testing, and bidirectional selection while accounting for sampling weights, clustering, and stratification. Plasmodium prevalence was 37.3% in younger children and 49.4% in older children. Each 10-percentage-point increase in community-level livestock and agricultural land ownership was associated with 2.5% (PR = 1.025; 95% CI: 1.011–1.039) and 4.6% (PR = 1.046; 95% CI: 1.029–1.062) higher prevalence, respectively. Socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with higher prevalence. Children in the lowest wealth quintile had 80.7% higher prevalence than those in the richest quintile (PR = 1.807; 95% CI: 1.467–2.224), and children whose mothers had no formal education had 55.8% higher prevalence than those with higher education (PR = 1.558; 95% CI: 1.225–1.980). Severe maternal anemia was associated with 22.5% higher prevalence (PR = 1.225; 95% CI: 1.012–1.483). Stunting and household insecticide-treated net (ITN) ownership were associated with 8.0% (PR = 1.080; 95% CI: 1.024–1.139) and 10.4% (PR = 1.104; 95% CI: 1.017–1.198) higher prevalence, respectively. Conversely, sleeping under an ITN (PR = 0.916; 95% CI: 0.858–0.977), breastfeeding (PR = 0.845; 95% CI: 0.764–0.934), maternal internet use (PR = 0.638; 95% CI: 0.475–0.857), and overweight-for-height (PR = 0.761; 95% CI: 0.631–0.917) were associated with lower prevalence. Age-specific associations were observed only in younger children, including paternal lack of education (PR = 1.301; 95% CI: 1.025–1.652) and rural residence (PR = 1.462; 95% CI: 1.266–1.688). These findings support age-tailored Plasmodium prevention and highlight the utility of CMS for complex population data.

Introduction

Malaria remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa, with Nigeria accounting for 27% of global cases and 31% of malaria deaths in 2022 [1]. Children under five experience a disproportionately high Plasmodium infection burden that leads to malaria, with substantial contributions to severe anemia, neurocognitive impairment, and years of life lost [2,3]. Although usually analyzed as a single age group, children under five are developmentally heterogeneous. Infants and toddlers under two years—the “first 1,000 days”—experience rapid growth, immune immaturity, and nutritional vulnerability, whereas children aged two to five years gain greater independence, mobility, and environmental exposure [4–7]. Understanding age-specific risk factors for Plasmodium infection is critical for optimizing the targeting and effectiveness of prevention strategies.

The Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) provides nationally representative Plasmodium biomarker data through stratified, cluster-based sampling, primarily targeting children under five due to their high Plasmodium infection burden [8]. Most DHS-based Plasmodium infection studies pool children under five or compare age groups only descriptively [9–12]. These analyses often include many covariates to improve explanatory power, but this may increase collinearity, overfitting, and confounding [9,10,12]. Although methods such as purposeful selection and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) can mitigate these issues, they are rarely implemented in ways that fully account for the DHS’s stratified, cluster-based design [13–18].

We aimed to identify age-common and age-specific factors of Plasmodium infection among younger (6–23.9 months) and older (24–59 months) children using the 2018 Nigeria DHS. To do so, we developed the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection (CMS) framework, a three-stage, survey-design–aligned approach that evaluates both main effects and age interactions. Guided by prior literature, we hypothesized that socioeconomic factors would show age-common associations, whereas nutritional, environmental, and caregiver-related factors might vary by age due to differences in developmental vulnerability and exposure patterns [5–7,12,19,20].

Materials and methods

Data sources

We used de-identified data from the 2018 Nigeria DHS, conducted from August 14 to December 29, 2018. The DHS employs stratified two-stage cluster sampling to select approximately 5,000–30,000 households per country [8,15]. Our analysis included 8,447 children aged 6–59 months with available Plasmodium test results, corresponding to the population systematically sampled for Plasmodium testing in the DHS. Data were obtained from the DHS Program website ([href:https://dhsprogram.com/data/]https://dhsprogram.com/data/).

Outcome measure: Plasmodium infection

As the DHS does not measure clinical malaria, we used Plasmodium infection as the outcome. Children were classified as infected if either light microscopy or rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) was positive, reflecting the high sensitivity of combined testing in high-endemic settings [21]. Records with one test missing and the other negative were excluded to improve specificity.

Independent covariates

We selected 56 candidate covariates (excluding age) based on a conceptual directed acyclic graph (DAG; Fig 1), comprising 13 community-level and 43 individual-level variables. The DAG was specified to represent hypothesized antecedent factors; thus we did not depict potential reverse pathways from Plasmodium infection to covariates. We calculated community-level covariates as the proportion of children with each characteristic within each DHS primary sampling unit (PSU) and assigned these values to all individuals in that cluster. We used PSUs as the community unit because each corresponds to a census enumeration area, a well-defined geographic proxy for local communities in national surveys [8]. We extracted individual-level covariates from children’s DHS responses including 8 sociodemographic, 11 child and maternal nutrition, 14 household structure and physical-environment, and 10 preventive and health-related behavior variables. We excluded variables with extensive missingness (≥10%) or non-informative responses unless specified by DHS guidelines. We modeled age both as a continuous and a dichotomous variable (6–23.9 vs. 24–59 months). Covariate definitions are provided in S1 Table.

Fig 1. Directed acyclic graph (DAG) of factors associated with Plasmodium infection among children aged 6–59 months in Nigeria, 2018 Demographic and Health Survey.

Fig 1

Conceptual DAG summarizing known and hypothesized pathways linking sociodemographic, environmental, nutritional, and behavioral factors to Plasmodium infection among children under five in Nigeria. The diagram integrates evidence from epidemiology, environmental health, child nutrition, and health-seeking behavior research and motivates identification of age-common and age-specific associations in the present analysis [5,9–11,14,19,20]. Abbreviations: DAG = directed acyclic graph; WASH = water, sanitation and hygiene; ITN = insecticide-treated net.

Statistical analysis

We conducted all analyses in R (version 4.5.1) within RStudio. We implemented the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection (CMS) framework, a three-stage, survey-aligned variable-selection approach incorporating DHS sampling weights, PSU clustering, and stratification to identify age-common and age-specific factors. With no a priori thresholds, we tested multiple tuning combinations and selected the most accurate and parsimonious configuration.

1. Step 1: survey-weighted LASSO regression covariate screening.

We fit a survey-weighted LASSO including all covariates and their interactions with the age-band indicator (6–23.9 vs. 24–59 months), leaving age and DAG-defined structural covariates unpenalized. Binary variables contributed one main and one interaction term; multi-category variables contributed these terms for each dummy indicator (a binary variable representing each response). We selected a parent covariate if any associated coefficient was non-zero at the chosen penalty parameter λ. To assess stability, we repeated LASSO across 200 stratified PSU-bootstrap replicates, advancing covariates selected above a tunable proportion threshold. Details on LASSO and bootstrapping are provided in S1 Text.

2. Step 2: Age-common and age-specific candidate identification.

All retained covariates were entered into a survey-weighted generalized linear model including their main and interaction terms. We screened age-interaction blocks using Wald tests with tunable p-value thresholds and re-evaluated them across the same 200 stratified PSU-bootstrap replicates. We classified covariates passing the tunable threshold as candidate age-specific factors; others as age-common factors.

Step 3: Bidirectional selection for model enrichment.

We fitted a survey-weighted quasi-Poisson model with a log link including main-effect terms for all candidate age-common covariates and both main and interaction terms for candidate age-specific covariates. Backward elimination began from the full model. At each iteration, we marked terms not meeting any retention criterion for removal, and removed the term whose exclusion resulted in the smallest increase (or largest decrease) in the simplified quasi-likelihood information criterion (QICu; Pan 2001), ensuring that the terms contributing least to model fit were eliminated first [22].

Following backward elimination, we conducted a forward reassessment to re-evaluate previously excluded terms, including Step 1 main and interaction terms and Step 2 interaction terms of candidate age-common covariates. We added each candidate term individually, and among those satisfying any retention criterion, we reintroduced the term yielding the greatest improvement (or smallest decrease) in QICu. QICu ties in both directions were resolved by p-value, then alphabetically.

Retention criteria were: 1) statistical significance of Wald block tests; 2) improved or minimally worsened model fit based on dQICu; 3) evidence of confounding, defined as notable mean or maximum changes in other covariates’ PRs when a term was removed. Thresholds for each criterion (p-value, dQICu tolerance, PR-change cutoffs) were tunable. Main-effect components of retained interaction terms and all DAG-defined structural covariates were always preserved in the final model.

3. Model diagnostics and selection of tuning parameters.

We evaluated all combinations of tunable thresholds across Steps 1–3. In step 1 we compared the minimum‐error and one–standard error rules for selecting the LASSO penalty λ, and bootstrap selection thresholds of 30% vs. 60%. In step 2 we evaluated age-interaction screening p-value cutoffs of 0.20, 0.15, and 0.10, alongside the same 30% and 60% bootstrap thresholds. Finally, in step 3 we assessed retention p-value thresholds of 0.15, 0.10, and 0.05 (always stricter than the paired Step 2 threshold), dQICu tolerances of −2, 0, and 2, and confounding thresholds based on relative mean and maximum PR changes of 10%/20% or 20%/40%.

For each configuration, we computed Pearson dispersion, QICu, calibration correlation, Rao–Scott F statistic, and total parameters (main and interaction terms counted separately). We used Brier scores obtained from cross-validation preserving DHS stratification and clustering as the primary ranking metric [23]. We grouped models into 0.1% bins above the minimum Brier score, with the k-th bin defined as Briermin(1+0.001·k). We then ranked models by Brier‐score bins and, within bins, by parsimony based on the number of parameters.

We summarized retention patterns in a heatmap showing each covariate’s selection frequency and effect direction.

4. Inference.

We used the top-ranked configuration to fit the final survey-weighted quasi-Poisson model. We assessed model fit using residual–fitted plots, and calibration by comparing survey-weighted observed prevalence with predicted probabilities across deciles.

For each covariate, the exponentiated main-effect coefficient represented the prevalence ratio (PR) among younger children. When an age interaction was present, the PR among older children was obtained by multiplying the exponentiated main-effect and interaction coefficients. Therefore, if the interaction coefficient was zero, the PR was identical across age groups, and the covariate was treated as age-common.

Results

We included a total of 2,914 younger children and 5,533 older children in the analysis. Among younger children, 37.3% tested positive for Plasmodium infection, compared with 49.4% of older children (Fig 2). Overall, 45.1% of children under five were positive (S1 Fig).

Fig 2. Prevalence of Plasmodium infection among younger (6–23.9 months) and older (24–59 months) children in Nigeria, 2018 Demographic and Health Survey.

Fig 2

Weighted prevalence of Plasmodium infection among children aged 6–59 months, stratified by younger and older age groups. Children testing positive by either rapid diagnostic test or light microscopy were classified as Plasmodium-positive; those negative on both tests were classified as Plasmodium-negative. Estimates incorporate sampling weights, clustering, and geographic stratification.

Weighted frequencies and proportions for individual-level covariates are presented in Table 1A, and median community-level proportions with their interquartile ranges (25th–75th percentiles) are shown in Table 1B. Full covariate definitions and recoding procedures are provided in S1 Table.

Table 1. A. Weighted distributions of individual-level covariates among younger (6–23.9 months) and older (24–59 months) children in Nigeria, 2018 Demographic and Health Survey. Weighted frequencies and proportions of each covariate in each age group are presented. Weights were calculated with clustering and geographical stratification according to the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) methodologies. Each covariate was defined following the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Standard Recode Manual for DHS-7 and the Guide to DHS Statistics, with additional refinements applied at the researchers’ discretion. Anthropometric indicators were coded according to World Health Organization definitions. Full details of covariate definitions and recoding procedures are provided in S1 Table. BMI = body mass index; ITN = insecticide-treated nets. 1B. Distributions of community-level covariates among younger (6–23.9 months) and older (24–59 months) children in Nigeria, 2018 Demographic and Health Survey. Distributions of community-level covariates across primary sampling units (PSU), each corresponding to a census enumeration area and serving as the operational community unit in this analysis. For each PSU, the proportion of children aged 6–59 months exhibiting each characteristic was calculated; median and interquartile ranges of these PSU-level proportions are reported.

Covariate name Younger children N (%) Older children N (%)
Socioeconomic and demographic
Female sex 1403 (47.2%) 2703 (49.1%)
Household wealth quintile
Richest 592 (19.9%) 999 (18.1%)
Richer 597 (20.1%) 1118 (20.3%)
Middle 614 (20.7%) 1126 (20.4%)
Poorer 563 (18.9%) 1118 (20.3%)
Poorest 605 (20.4%) 1146 (20.8%)
Education level of the mother
Higher 288 (9.7%) 485 (8.8%)
Secondary 1097 (36.9%) 1800 (32.7%)
Primary 449 (15.1%) 942 (17.1%)
None 1138 (38.3%) 2279 (41.4%)
Education level of the father
Higher 452 (15.2%) 783 (14.2%)
Secondary 1102 (37.1%) 1954 (35.5%)
Primary 411 (13.8%) 803 (14.6%)
None 1007 (33.9%) 1966 (35.7%)
Occupation of the mother
Office work 1574 (53%) 3050 (55.4%)
Manual labor 124 (4.2%) 238 (4.3%)
None 1274 (42.9%) 2218 (40.3%)
Occupation of the father
Office work 1208 (40.6%) 2191 (39.8%)
Manual labor 1524 (51.3%) 2900 (52.7%)
None 240 (8.1%) 415 (7.5%)
Area of residence
North Central 398 (13.4%) 782 (14.2%)
North East 463 (15.6%) 827 (15%)
North West 871 (29.3%) 1699 (30.9%)
South South or South East 739 (24.9%) 1211 (22%)
South West 502 (16.9%) 988 (17.9%)
Household lives in rural regions 1634 (55%) 3111 (56.5%)
Child & Maternal nutrition
Fulfills minimum dietary diversity 677 (22.8%) 0 (0%)
Fulfills minimum meal frequency 1230 (41.4%) 0 (0%)
Fulfills minimum acceptable diet 314 (10.6%) 0 (0%)
Given iron supplement within 7 days 548 (18.4%) 1038 (18.8%)
Child given vitamin A supplement within 6 months 1381 (46.5%) 2569 (46.6%)
Anemia level of the mother
Normal 1279 (43%) 2278 (41.4%)
Mild 797 (26.8%) 1483 (26.9%)
Moderate 862 (29%) 1643 (29.8%)
Severe 34 (1.1%) 102 (1.8%)
BMI status of the mother
Normal 1858 (62.5%) 3395 (61.7%)
Very thin 79 (2.7%) 148 (2.7%)
Thin 248 (8.3%) 349 (6.3%)
Overweight 527 (17.7%) 1055 (19.2%)
Obese 260 (8.8%) 560 (10.2%)
Height-for-age
With stunting 981 (33%) 2349 (42.7%)
Normal 1991 (67%) 3157 (57.3%)
Weight-for-height
With wasting 349 (11.8%) 229 (4.2%)
Normal 2543 (85.6%) 5166 (93.8%)
Overweight 80 (2.7%) 112 (2%)
Weight-for-age
Underweight 682 (23%) 1248 (22.7%)
Normal 2261 (76.1%) 4238 (77%)
Overweight 28 (1%) 20 (0.4%)
Currently breastfed 1984 (66.8%) 90 (1.6%)
Household structure and physical environment
Number of household members
2-4 members 907 (30.5%) 1230 (22.3%)
5-7 members 1143 (38.5%) 2364 (42.9%)
8 or more members 922 (31%) 1912 (34.7%)
Access to electricity 1698 (57.1%) 3061 (55.6%)
House has finished flooring material 2117 (71.2%) 3889 (70.6%)
2 or more rooms for sleeping 2101 (70.7%) 4057 (73.7%)
Cooks inside 2012 (67.7%) 3725 (67.6%)
Owns agricultural land 1870 (62.9%) 3541 (64.3%)
Owns livestock 1438 (48.4%) 2955 (53.7%)
Access to improved sanitation facility 1649 (55.5%) 2875 (52.2%)
Shares toilet with others 896 (30.1%) 1661 (30.2%)
Place of handwashing
At home: fixed 736 (24.8%) 1398 (25.4%)
At home: mobile 1673 (56.3%) 3092 (56.1%)
Not at home 563 (18.9%) 1016 (18.5%)
Has soap and water when washing hands 884 (29.8%) 1618 (29.4%)
Ash, mud, sand present at handwashing place 30 (1%) 60 (1.1%)
Access to improved water source 1865 (62.7%) 3466 (62.9%)
Owns water source 861 (29%) 1530 (27.8%)
Prevention and health-related behaviors
Household owns ITN 2077 (69.9%) 3789 (68.8%)
Household owns more than 1 ITN per 2 members 566 (19%) 1042 (18.9%)
Slept under an ITN last night 1631 (54.9%) 2754 (50%)
Mother uses the internet at least once a week 281 (9.5%) 455 (8.3%)
Mother exposed to mass media at least once a week 1278 (43%) 2328 (42.3%)
Visited health facility in the last 12 months 1700 (57.2%) 2856 (51.9%)
Mother had problems in accessing healthcare 1578 (53.1%) 2918 (53%)
Appropriate disposal of children's stool 1650 (55.5%) 1269 (23%)
Mother received drugs for intestinal parasites during pregnancy 513 (17.3%) 459 (8.3%)
Place of delivery
Own or other's home 1619 (54.5%) 3103 (56.3%)
Government facility 844 (28.4%) 1570 (28.5%)
Private facility 510 (17.1%) 833 (15.1%)
1B
Covariate Median proportion

(25th-75th percentile)
Socioeconomic and demographic
Household is poor or poorer 20.0% (0.0%–80.0%)
Mother received primary education or higher 88.9% (28.6%–100.0%)
Father received primary education or higher 80.0% (50.0%–100.0%)
Mother is employed 60.0% (33.3%–90.0%)
Father is employed 100.0% (85.7%–100.0%)
Household structure and physical environment
Household owns livestock 50.0% (0.0%–83.3%)
Household owns agricultural land 75.0% (28.6%–100.0%)
House has finished flooring material 100.0% (50.0%–100.0%)
Access to electricity 71.4% (0.0%–100.0%)
Access to improved sanitation facility 57.1% (0.0%–100.0%)
Access to improved water source 75.0% (33.3%–100.0%)
Prevention and health-related behaviors
Mother exposed to mass media at least once a week 40.0% (9.1%–75.0%)
Household owns ITN 72.7% (42.9%–100.0%)

A total of 144 tuning-parameter combinations were evaluated (S2 Table). Covariate-selection patterns were highly stable across models, with consistent retention of significant covariates, no reversals in effect direction, and non-significant covariates appearing mainly in lower-ranked models, indicating robustness of the selection procedure (S2 Fig). The highest-ranking model used the minimum-error rule for λ in Step 1, a stratified PSU-level bootstrap threshold of 30% in Steps 1 and 2, and a Step 2 screening threshold of p < 0.20. In Step 3, covariates were retained if they met at least one of the following: p < 0.05, model improvement by dQICu tolerance ≤2, or confounding PR changes ≥20% (mean) and ≥40% (maximum) among all other covariates. This model showed moderate overdispersion (Pearson dispersion = 3.75), no systematic residual–fitted patterns, and excellent calibration (calibration coefficient = 0.989), with close agreement between observed and predicted prevalence across risk deciles (S3 Fig). It was also the second-most parsimonious model, with 46 parameters.

Using these tuning parameters, 56 covariates entered Step 1, of which 35 were retained (S3 Table). In Step 2, 5 covariates were classified as age-common and 30 as candidate age-specific factors. After bidirectional selection in Step 3, 21 covariates remained, of which 17 were age-common and 4 were age-specific. All retained variables were selected during backward elimination, and none were reintroduced during forward reassessment.

PRs from the final model are shown in Table 2. Community-level PRs reflect prevalence changes per 10-percentage-point increase in PSU-level exposure, and individual-level PRs compare children with versus without the characteristic.

Table 2. Prevalence ratios for age-common and age-specific factors associated with Plasmodium infection among children aged 6–59 months in Nigeria. Prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated from a survey-weighted generalized linear model using a three-stage, survey-aligned variable-selection framework to identify age-common and age-specific associations. Younger children were aged 6–23.9 months and older children 24–59 months. Age-common factors exhibit consistent associations across both age groups, whereas age-specific factors differ between them. Covariates associated with higher prevalence are shown in red; those associated with lower prevalence are shown in blue. Abbreviations: PR = prevalence ratio; CI = confidence interval; PSU = primary sampling unit; BMI = body mass index; ITN = insecticide-treated net.

Covariate name Age pattern Younger children PR (95% CI) Older children PR (95% CI)
Community-level factors (per 10-percentage-point increase)
Socioeconomic and demographic
Household is poor or poorer Age-common 1.013 (1.000–1.026)
Mother received primary education or higher Age-common 1.000 (0.982–1.018)
Household structure and physical environment
Household owns livestock Age-common 1.025 (1.011–1.039)
Household owns agricultural land Age-common 1.046 (1.029–1.062)
Individual-level factors
Socioeconomic and demographic
Household wealth quintile Age-common
Richest Reference
Richer 1.668 (1.384–2.012)
Middle 1.833 (1.515–2.218)
Poorer 1.753 (1.432–2.147)
Poorest 1.807 (1.467–2.224)
Education level of the mother Age-common
Higher Reference
Secondary 1.303 (1.045–1.624)
Primary 1.544 (1.228–1.941)
None 1.558 (1.225–1.980)
Education level of the father Age-specific
Higher Reference Reference
Secondary 1.095 (0.858–1.397) 0.944 (0.567–1.570)
Primary 1.173 (0.895–1.537) 0.972 (0.557–1.696)
None 1.301 (1.025–1.652) 0.966 (0.592–1.575)
Area of residence Age-common
North Central Reference
North East 0.763 (0.677–0.860)
North West 0.967 (0.868–1.077)
South South or South East 1.078 (0.953–1.219)
South West 1.559 (1.367–1.778)
Household lives in rural regions Age-specific 1.462 (1.266–1.688) 1.263 (0.950–1.679)
Child & Maternal nutrition
Given iron supplement within 7 days Age-specific 0.879 (0.757–1.021) 1.078 (0.795–1.462)
Child given vitamin A supplement within 6 months Age-common 0.936 (0.880–0.995)
Anemia level of the mother Age-common
Normal Reference
Mild 1.132 (1.060–1.208)
Moderate 1.144 (1.077–1.215)
Severe 1.225 (1.012–1.483)
BMI status of the mother Age-common
Normal Reference
Very thin 0.975 (0.869–1.095)
Thin 0.956 (0.874–1.046)
Overweight 0.896 (0.825–0.974)
Obese 0.788 (0.669–0.928)
Height-for-age Age-common
With stunting 1.080 (1.024–1.139)
Normal Reference
Weight-for-height Age-common
With wasting 1.047 (0.953–1.150)
Normal Reference
Overweight 0.761 (0.631–0.917)
Currently breastfed Age-common 0.845 (0.764–0.934)
Household structure and physical environment
Place of handwashing Age-common
At home: fixed Reference
At home: mobile 1.005 (0.931–1.084)
Not at home 1.091 (0.996–1.196)
Prevention and health-related behaviors
Household owns ITN Age-common 1.104 (1.017–1.198)
Slept under an ITN last night Age-common 0.916 (0.858–0.977)
Mother uses the internet at least once a week Age-common 0.638 (0.475–0.857)
Appropriate disposal of children's stool Age-specific 0.942 (0.850–1.044) 1.073 (0.866–1.330)

Sixteen covariates had at least one response category significantly associated with Plasmodium infection (Table 2). Two community-level covariates showed age-common effects. A 10-percentage-point increase in community-level household livestock ownership was associated with a 2.5% increase in prevalence (PR = 1.025; 95% CI: 1.011–1.039), and a similar increase in community-level agricultural land ownership was associated with a 4.6% increase (PR = 1.046; 95% CI: 1.029–1.062).

Of the 14 individual-level covariates, 12 exhibited age-common effects and 2 were age-specific. Among age-common covariates associated with increased Plasmodium prevalence, the largest increases were observed for socioeconomic disadvantage. Children in any wealth quintile below the richest had prevalence increases of 66.8–80.7% (PR = 1.668–1.807; all p < 0.05), followed by children whose mothers had less than higher education, who had increases of 30.3–55.8% (PR = 1.303–1.558; all p < 0.05). Maternal anemia was associated with modest increases of 13.2–22.5% (PR = 1.132–1.225). Smaller increases were observed for household ITN ownership (PR = 1.104; 95% CI: 1.017–1.198) and child stunting (PR = 1.080; 95% CI: 1.024–1.139).

Several age-common covariates were associated with decreased Plasmodium prevalence. Children whose mothers used the internet at least once a week showed the largest reduction, with 36.2% lower prevalence (PR = 0.638; 95% CI: 0.475–0.857), followed by children who were overweight-for-height, with a 23.9% reduction (PR = 0.761; 95% CI: 0.631–0.917), and by children of mothers with obesity, who had a 21.2% reduction (PR = 0.788; 95% CI: 0.669–0.928). More modest reductions were observed for current breastfeeding with 15.5% lower prevalence (PR = 0.845; 95% CI: 0.764–0.934), maternal overweight with a 10.4% reduction (PR = 0.896; 95% CI: 0.825–0.974), sleeping under an ITN with an 8.4% reduction (PR = 0.916; 95% CI: 0.858–0.977), and recent vitamin A supplementation with a 6.4% reduction (PR = 0.936; 95% CI: 0.880–0.995).

Geographic region showed substantial variability in Plasmodium prevalence. Compared with the North Central region, prevalence was 23.7% lower in the North East (PR = 0.763; 95% CI: 0.667–0.860) and 55.9% higher in the South West (PR = 1.559; 95% CI: 1.367–1.778).

Two covariates demonstrated age-specific effects. Among younger children, having a father with no education versus higher education increased prevalence by 30.1% (PR = 1.301; 95% CI: 1.025–1.652), but no significant association was observed among older children (PR = 0.966; 95% CI: 0.592-1.575). Younger children living in rural areas also had markedly higher prevalence, with a 46.2% increase (PR = 1.462; 95% CI: 1.266–1.688), again with no significant association among older children (PR = 1.263; 95% CI: 0.950-1.679).

Discussion

In this nationally representative analysis of Nigerian children under five, we applied the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection (CMS) framework to identify age-common and age-specific factors of Plasmodium infection while accounting for the stratified and clustered design of the Demographic and Health Survey. Using CMS, we reaffirmed established socioeconomic, nutritional, ecological, and behavioral determinants and revealed age-dependent heterogeneity obscured in pooled under-five analyses.

We found that community-level ecological factors of livestock and agricultural land ownership were consistently associated with higher Plasmodium prevalence. We observed geographic heterogeneity, with lower prevalence in the North East and higher prevalence in the South West relative to the North Central region.

Among age-common individual-level factors, we found that socioeconomic disadvantage showed the strongest associations, with clear gradients by household wealth and maternal education. Nutritional factors showed smaller but consistent associations, with stunting associated with higher prevalence and overweight or obesity, vitamin A supplementation, and breastfeeding associated with lower prevalence. Maternal anemia was associated with higher prevalence, whereas maternal overweight or obesity was associated with lower prevalence. Prevention-related behaviors showed divergent patterns, with ITN ownership associated with higher prevalence but child-level ITN use associated with lower prevalence. Maternal internet use showed the strongest protective association with Plasmodium prevalence.

We identified lack of paternal education and rural residence as age-specific factors; each associated with higher prevalence only among younger children.

Finally, we demonstrated the utility of CMS for high-dimensional population surveys. CMS enabled robust variable selection while accounting for complex survey design, yielding stable and interpretable models for population-level inference.

The associations between community-level livestock ownership, agricultural land use, and higher Plasmodium prevalence align with prior evidence that Plasmodium infection transmission is shaped primarily by shared ecological environments rather than individual household characteristics. Agricultural activity and livestock presence serve as proxies for vector-favorable landscapes that increase exposure risk at the community level [24–26].

We identified geographic heterogeneity that aligns with prior evidence of regional variation in Plasmodium infection burden across Nigeria [27]. Although both the North East and South West are ecologically suitable for Anopheles vectors, the lower prevalence observed in the North East after socioeconomic adjustment likely reflects differences in population density and Plasmodium control coverage, including seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) [26,28–30]. In contrast, persistently higher prevalence in the highly urbanized South West is consistent with evidence that urbanization does not uniformly confer protection, as unplanned growth, poor drainage, and stagnant water can sustain Anopheles breeding even in nominally urban settings [28].

Strong and graded associations between socioeconomic disadvantage and Plasmodium prevalence are well documented [10–12,31,32]. Prior studies suggest that household wealth and maternal education reflect disparities in housing quality, preventive access, health literacy, and care-seeking linked to Plasmodium susceptibility [1,19,31,33,34]. Evidence also supports bidirectional causation, whereby Plasmodium infection may reinforce socioeconomic disadvantage through financial burden [35].

The associations observed for nutritional and maternal health factors align with established links between early-life nutrition, immune competence, and Plasmodium infection susceptibility. Chronic undernutrition may impair immune responses and parasite clearance, while malaria from Plasmodium infection may contribute to growth faltering, suggesting a bidirectional association with Plasmodium infection [36–38]. Breastfeeding and vitamin A supplementation are known to support immune function and have been associated with reduced Plasmodium infection [39,40].

Divergent associations for prevention-related behaviors warrant careful interpretation. Household ITN ownership was associated with higher prevalence, likely reflecting residual confounding and programmatic targeting of ITNs to higher-risk households in endemic areas, rather than a causal effect. In contrast, child-level ITN use was associated with lower prevalence, consistent with established protective efficacy [1,11,41]. This discrepancy highlights a measurement distinction between access and utilization, as ownership does not ensure consistent or correct use [42]. Additionally, reverse causality may contribute, whereby households experiencing prior malaria episodes are more likely to acquire or retain ITNs. Together, these findings emphasize that effective utilization, rather than access alone, is critical for reducing Plasmodium infection risk. Protective association for maternal internet use may reflect improved access to health information, as suggested by prior regional studies from Nigeria [43].

We identified age-specific associations for paternal education and rural residence, contrasting with prior pooled analyses that reported inconsistent or uniformly elevated risks, suggesting masked age-related heterogeneity [24,27,44–47]. Early childhood is a period of heightened caregiver dependence, when caregiver characteristics may disproportionately influence child health [34,43,46]. Therefore, paternal education may be more consequential in early childhood, before caregiving roles shift toward mothers as children age, and younger children in rural settings may experience greater exposure through caregiver proximity; however, these pathways could not be evaluated using DHS data.

Our findings among children under five align with Plasmodium infection patterns reported in older children and adults. Unlike children under five, there is no DHS-equivalent standardized survey that reliably estimates Plasmodium prevalence in older age groups in sub-Saharan Africa [48]. Global Burden of Disease data analyses across sub-Saharan Africa demonstrated lower Plasmodium prevalence among school-aged children (6–12 years; 17.6%) compared to adolescents and adults (≥12 years; 36.5%), mimicking our finding of higher prevalence among older children (49.4%) compared with younger children (37.3%) [48]. Across age groups, evidence suggests a repeating age-related gradient in Plasmodium prevalence, with lower prevalence among younger children and primary school–aged children and higher prevalence among older children under five and adolescents, indicating that ages two and twelve may represent key transition points in mobility, exposure, and caregiving intensity. Age-common factors identified in our study, including lower socioeconomic status, limited education, and inconsistent ITN use, were also significant determinants in older age groups [48–52].

Notably, some studies have found that rural residence has not been consistently associated with Plasmodium infection beyond age five once specific environmental and behavioral exposures are considered [49,53]. Instead, proximate factors such as household farming activity, stagnant water, proximity to rivers, and vegetation near households appear to drive infection risk, suggesting that the age-specific association observed among younger children in our study may also reflect the impact of age-dependent behaviors or environmental exposures rather than rural residence itself [49,54].

Methodologically, many DHS-based multivariable studies are limited by collinearity, inadequate model validation, and incomplete appreciation of the survey design, compromising stable selection and population-level inference [13,15,16,18]. These challenges likely contribute to heterogeneous findings and underscore the utility of CMS as a rigorous yet flexible approach.

Our study has several limitations. Because the 2024 DHS discontinued Plasmodium infection testing and the 2021 Malaria Indicator Survey did not collect covariates as comprehensive as those in the DHS, we relied on the 2018 DHS data, which may limit the timeliness of our findings. The cross-sectional DHS design supports association analyses but precludes assessment of transmission seasonality and evaluation of malaria control programs, including seasonal malaria chemoprevention. DHS Plasmodium infection testing is restricted to children under five, which precludes assessment of older children and limits inference across the full pediatric age spectrum. Outcome misclassification is possible due to persistent RDT positivity. Residual confounding from unmeasured environmental or behavioral factors may also influence observed associations. CMS relies on researcher-defined, data-informed tuning parameters, which may introduce selection uncertainty, and age was modeled using pre-specified categories rather than flexible nonlinear functions, potentially obscuring more complex age-related patterns. While CMS incorporated stability thresholds and survey-aligned validation to mitigate overfitting, post-selection bias cannot be fully eliminated.

Conclusion

Using the 2018 Nigeria DHS, we applied the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection (CMS) framework to identify age-common and age-specific determinants of Plasmodium infection among children under five. Higher Plasmodium prevalence among younger children in rural and socioeconomically disadvantaged households highlights priority populations for age-targeted Plasmodium control, including household-level prevention and caregiver-focused interventions. CMS provides a rigorous, reproducible approach for inference in clustered, multilevel data and is broadly applicable to complex population-based studies such as DHS. Public health interventions should account for age heterogeneity within under-five populations, and future studies should investigate underlying immunological, behavioral, and socioeconomic mechanisms while validating CMS across settings.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Full list and definitions of covariates evaluated in the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection to identify age-common and age-specific factors associated with Plasmodium infection among children under 5 years in Nigeria, based on the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

Raw covariates were merged, filtered, or recoded as needed to create more interpretable, generalizable, and epidemiologically meaningful variables. The Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) Standard Recode Manual and the Guide to DHS Statistics (DHS-7) were consulted in constructing these covariates.

(XLSX)

pgph.0006693.s001.xlsx (18KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. Diagnostic assessments for models used to tune threshold parameters in the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection identifying age-common and age-specific factors associated with Plasmodium infection among children under five in Nigeria, 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

Tuning parameters included the method (minimum-error or 1-standard-error) used to determine the penalty λ term for least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression in Step 1; the proportion of bootstrap trials required for a covariate to pass Step 1; the p-value cutoff for identifying candidate age-specific covariates in Step 2; the p-value cutoff for selecting significant covariates in Step 3; the cutoff of modified quasi-likelihood information criterion improvement for identifying model-improving covariates in Step 3; and the cutoff of relative prevalence ratio changes for identifying potential confounding covariates in Step 3. For each model, we report the Pearson dispersion statistic, the modified quasi-likelihood information criterion, the calibration correlation coefficient, the Rao–Scott adjusted global model test, the cross-validated Brier score and bins grouped by 0.1% increments of the best score, and the number of estimated parameters. Models were ranked first by their Brier score bins and, within ties, by parsimony. Selected model is highlighted in black. The tuning parameters from the top-ranked model were selected. Abbreviations: F = Rao-Scott F statistic; λ = penalty term used for least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression; dQIC = difference in the simplified quasi-likelihood information criterion; dPR = change in prevalence ratio; φ = Pearson dispersion statistic; QICu = simplified quasi-likelihood information criterion; r = calibration correlation coefficient.

(XLSX)

pgph.0006693.s002.xlsx (23.3KB, xlsx)
S3 Table. Step-by-step results of the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection identifying age-common and age-specific factors associated with Plasmodium infection among children under five in Nigeria, 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

Variable selection results from the three-stage covariate screening procedure. Community-level factors were defined as primary sampling unit level proportions of individuals exhibiting each covariate, and individual-level factors were measured directly for each child. In Step 1, survey-weighted least absolute shrinkage and selection operator with stratified primary sampling unit bootstrapping retained covariates selected in ≥60% of bootstrap replicates. In Step 2, generalized linear models (GLMs) with bootstrapping identified candidate age-varying covariates when age-interaction terms were significant in ≥60% of replicates; remaining covariates were treated as candidate age-common covariates. In Step 3, backward elimination with forward reassessment retained covariates that showed significant associations with Plasmodium infection, improved model fit by modified quasi-information criterion changes, or acted as confounders based on changes in mean or maximum prevalence ratios. Refer to S1 Text for details. The final age pattern (“age-common” or “age-specific”) and retention status are reported for each covariate. Abbreviations: LASSO = Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator; GLM = Generalized Linear Model; DAG = Directed Acyclic Graph; BMI = Body Mass Index; ITN = Insecticide-Treated Net; QICu = simplified quasi-likelihood information criterion; dQIC = QICu of reduced model minus QICu of retained model; PR = prevalence ratio; dPR = Relative prevalence ratio change.

(XLSX)

pgph.0006693.s003.xlsx (14.2KB, xlsx)
S4 Table. Covariate-level results from the final Cluster-aware Multistage Selection model identifying age-common and age-specific factors associated with Plasmodium infection among children under five in Nigeria, 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

Community-level factors were defined as primary sampling unit level proportions of individuals exhibiting each covariate, and individual-level factors were measured directly for each child. Model statistics are reported for covariates retained in the final survey-weighted quasi-Poisson regression model with a log link following the multi-level, three-stage, survey-design-aware, bidirectional covariate selection procedure. Interaction terms between the age-bin indicator (24–59 months versus 6–23.9 months) and each covariate X are presented as Age × X. Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; ITN = insecticide-treated nets.

(XLSX)

pgph.0006693.s004.xlsx (13.7KB, xlsx)
S1 Fig. Prevalence of Plasmodium infection among younger (6–23.9 months) and older (24–59 months) children in Nigeria, 2018 Demographic and Health Survey.

Weighted prevalence of Plasmodium infection among children aged 6–59 months, stratified by younger and older age groups. Children testing positive by either rapid diagnostic test or light microscopy were classified as malaria-positive; those negative on both tests were classified as malaria-negative. Estimates incorporate sampling weights, clustering, and geographic stratification.

(TIF)

pgph.0006693.s005.tif (1.8MB, tif)
S2 Fig. Covariate retention across 144 tuning configurations in the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection identifying age-common and age-specific factors associated with Plasmodium infection among children under five in Nigeria, 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

The Cluster-aware Multistage Selection framework included several tunable components. Step 1 varied the LASSO penalty-rule for λ (minimum-error vs 1-standard-error). Steps 1–2 varied the stratified PSU-level bootstrap selection threshold (30% vs 60%) and Step 2 used p-value cutoffs of 0.20, 0.15, or 0.05. Step 3 applied stricter p-value thresholds (0.15, 0.10, 0.05), simplified quasi-likelihood information criterion or QICu of reduced model minus retained model tolerances of (−2, 0, or +2), and confounding thresholds based on relative mean/maximum PR changes (20%/40% or 10%/20%). These combinations yielded 144 unique tuning configurations. Models were ranked by Brier-score bins and, within bins, by parsimony. In the plot, models are ordered left to right from highest to lowest ranking. For each model, covariates are shown as retained (X) or excluded; if retained, associations are colored as significant increasing (red), significant decreasing (blue), or non-significant (grey). Results are presented separately for younger (6–23.9 months) and older (24–59 months) children, with age-common and age-specific associations distinguished by shading intensity. Abbreviations: BMI = body mass index; ITN = insecticide-treated nets.

(TIF)

pgph.0006693.s006.tif (5.9MB, tif)
S3 Fig. Residual and calibration plots for the final model selected using the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection to identify age-common and age-specific factors associated with Plasmodium infection among children under five in Nigeria, 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

Model selected from the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection was evaluated using residual–fitted plots, and calibration was assessed by comparing survey-weighted observed prevalence with predicted probabilities across deciles of fitted probabilities.

(TIF)

pgph.0006693.s007.tif (837.4KB, tif)
S1 Text. Statistical methods used in the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection to identify age-common and age-specific factors of Plasmodium infection among children under five in Nigeria, using the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

(PDF)

pgph.0006693.s008.pdf (153.2KB, pdf)

Data Availability

This study used de-identified data from the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS). Researchers may request access through the DHS Program data portal (https://dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm) by registering for an account, submitting a research project description, selecting the 2018 Nigeria DHS, and agreeing to the DHS data-use conditions. Following approval, researchers may download the dataset and its accompanying documentation and codebook. The DHS recode files used in this study were NGKR7BFL.DTA (Children’s Recode), NGPR7BFL.DTA (Household Member Recode), and NGHR7BFL.DTA (Household Recode). Because DHS data-use conditions prohibit redistribution, the recode files are not included with this article or in the code repository. No DOI or accession number is assigned to the 2018 Nigeria DHS microdata. The full R code is publicly available at https://github.com/woojae1995/Nigeria_DHS_2018_age_specific_RF.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. World Malaria Report 2024. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Trivedi S, Chakravarty A. Neurological complications of malaria. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports. 2022. doi: 10.1007/s11910-022-01214-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Angell B, Sanuade O, Adetifa IMO, Okeke IN, Adamu AL, Aliyu MH. Population health outcomes in Nigeria compared with other west African countries, 1998–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet. 2022;399(10330). doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02722-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ebrahim GJ. WHO child growth standards. growth velocity based on weight, length and head circumference. J Trop Pediatr. 2010;56(2). doi: 10.1093/tropej/fmp086 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kihwele F, Gavana T, Makungu C, Msuya HM, Mlacha YP, Govella NJ, et al. Exploring activities and behaviours potentially increases school-age children’s vulnerability to malaria infections in south-eastern Tanzania. Malar J. 2023;22(1):293. doi: 10.1186/s12936-023-04703-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Victora CG, Adair L, Fall C, Hallal PC, Martorell R, Richter L, et al. Maternal and child undernutrition: consequences for adult health and human capital. Lancet. 2008;371(9609):340–57. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61692-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Scott JA. The first 1000 days: a critical period of nutritional opportunity and vulnerability. Nutr Diet. 2020;77(3):295–7. doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.12617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.National Population Commission (NPC) N, ICF. Nigeria Demographic Health Survey 2018. Rockville, Maryland, USA: ICF; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nambiema A, Robert A, Yaya I. Prevalence and risk factors of anemia in children aged from 6 to 59 months in Togo: analysis from Togo demographic and health survey data, 2013-2014. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):215. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6547-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zgambo M, Mbakaya BC, Kalembo FW. Prevalence and factors associated with malaria parasitaemia in children under the age of five years in Malawi: a comparison study of the 2012 and 2014 Malaria Indicator Surveys (MISs). PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175537. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sarfo JO, Amoadu M, Kordorwu PY, Adams AK, Gyan TB, Osman A-G, et al. Malaria amongst children under five in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review of prevalence, risk factors and preventive interventions. Eur J Med Res. 2023;28(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-01046-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Anjorin S, Okolie E, Yaya S. Malaria profile and socioeconomic predictors among under-five children: an analysis of 11 sub-Saharan African countries. Malar J. 2023;22(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s12936-023-04484-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code Biol Med. 2008;3:17. doi: 10.1186/1751-0473-3-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lakew G, Tareke AA, Yigzaw ZA, Getachew D, Getachew E, Yirsaw AN. Individual and community level factors of malaria among under-five children in Kenya: based on the Kenya Demographic and Health Survey. PLoS One. 2025;20(10):e0335346. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0335346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Corsi DJ, Neuman M, Finlay JE, Subramanian SV. Demographic and health surveys: a profile. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(6):1602–13. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J Stat Softw. 2010;33(1):1–22. doi: 10.18637/jss.v033.i01 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tibshirani R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J Royal Statistical Society Series B: Methodological. 1996;58(1). doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dey D, Haque MS, Islam MM, Aishi UI, Shammy SS, Mayen MSA, et al. The proper application of logistic regression model in complex survey data: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025;25(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02454-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tusting LS, Bottomley C, Gibson H, Kleinschmidt I, Tatem AJ, Lindsay SW, et al. Housing improvements and malaria risk in sub-saharan africa: a multi-country analysis of survey data. PLoS Med. 2017;14(2):e1002234. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yang D, He Y, Wu B, Deng Y, Li M, Yang Q, et al. Drinking water and sanitation conditions are associated with the risk of malaria among children under five years old in sub-Saharan Africa: a logistic regression model analysis of national survey data. J Adv Res. 2019;21:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2019.09.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mwenda MC, Fola AA, Ciubotariu II, Mulube C, Mambwe B, Kasaro R, et al. Performance evaluation of RDT, light microscopy, and PET-PCR for detecting Plasmodium falciparum malaria infections in the 2018 Zambia National Malaria Indicator Survey. Malar J. 2021;20(1):386. doi: 10.1186/s12936-021-03917-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pan W. Akaike’s information criterion in generalized estimating equations. Biometrics. 2001;57(1):120–5. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.00120.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models. Epidemiology. 2010;21(1):128–38. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Janko MM, Irish SR, Reich BJ, Peterson M, Doctor SM, Mwandagalirwa MK, et al. The links between agriculture, Anopheles mosquitoes, and malaria risk in children younger than 5 years in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: a population-based, cross-sectional, spatial study. Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2(2):e74–82. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30009-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Arisco NJ, Rice BL, Tantely LM, Girod R, Emile GN, Randriamady HJ, et al. Variation in Anopheles distribution and predictors of malaria infection risk across regions of Madagascar. Malar J. 2020;19(1):348. doi: 10.1186/s12936-020-03423-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Adeogun A, Babalola AS, Okoko OO, Oyeniyi T, Omotayo A, Izekor RT, et al. Spatial distribution and ecological niche modeling of geographical spread of Anopheles gambiae complex in Nigeria using real time data. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):13679. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-40929-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Obasohan PE, Walters SJ, Jacques R, Khatab K. Individual and Contextual Factors Associated with Malaria among Children 6-59 Months in Nigeria: A Multilevel Mixed Effect Logistic Model Approach. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(21):11234. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182111234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Merga H, Degefa T, Birhanu Z, Tadele A, Lee MC, Yan G. Urban malaria in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review of epidemiologic studies. Malar J. 2025;24(1):131. doi: 10.1186/s12936-025-05368-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ogbulafor N, Uhomoibhi P, Shekarau E, Nikau J, Okoronkwo C, Fanou NML, et al. Facilitators and barriers to seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) uptake in Nigeria: a qualitative approach. Malar J. 2023;22(1):120. doi: 10.1186/s12936-023-04547-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ambe JP, Balogun ST, Waziri MB, Nglass IN, Saddiq A. Impacts of seasonal malaria chemoprevention on malaria burden among under five-year-old children in Borno State, Nigeria. J Trop Med. 2020;2020:9372457. doi: 10.1155/2020/9372457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Tusting LS, Willey B, Lucas H, Thompson J, Kafy HT, Smith R, et al. Socioeconomic development as an intervention against malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2013;382(9896):963–72. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60851-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Chilot D, Mondelaers A, Alem AZ, Asres MS, Yimer MA, Toni AT, et al. Pooled prevalence and risk factors of malaria among children aged 6-59 months in 13 sub-Saharan African countries: A multilevel analysis using recent malaria indicator surveys. PLoS One. 2023;18(5):e0285265. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Diema Konlan K, Amu H, Konlan KD, Japiong M. Awareness and Malaria Prevention Practices in a Rural Community in the Ho Municipality, Ghana. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis. 2019;2019:9365823. doi: 10.1155/2019/9365823 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Adeleke TO, Akinlosotu MA, Samson TK, Adeleke OV, Ajala DE, Olasinde Y, et al. Malaria knowledge and preventive practices among caregivers of under-five children in Southwest Nigeria. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):36821. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-22713-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Andrade MV, Noronha K, Diniz BPC, Guedes G, Carvalho LR, Silva VA, et al. The economic burden of malaria: a systematic review. Malar J. 2022;21(1):283. doi: 10.1186/s12936-022-04303-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gari T, Loha E, Deressa W, Solomon T, Lindtjørn B. Malaria increased the risk of stunting and wasting among young children in Ethiopia: results of a cohort study. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0190983. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Fillol F, Sarr JB, Boulanger D, Cisse B, Sokhna C, Riveau G, et al. Impact of child malnutrition on the specific anti-Plasmodium falciparum antibody response. Malar J. 2009;8:116. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-8-116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Oldenburg CE, Guerin PJ, Berthé F, Grais RF, Isanaka S. Malaria and nutritional status among children with severe acute malnutrition in niger: a prospective cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67(7):1027–34. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Serghides L, Kain KC. Mechanism of protection induced by vitamin A in falciparum malaria. Lancet. 2002;359(9315):1404–6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08360-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Brazeau NF, Tabala M, Kiketa L, Kayembe D, Chalachala JL, Kawende B, et al. Exclusive breastfeeding and clinical malaria risk in 6-month-old infants: a cross-sectional study from kinshasa, democratic republic of the Congo. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;95(4):827–30. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Nwaorgu OC. ITN ownership and usage among household members in Okposi and Umuoghana communities in Ezza North LGA, Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(suppl_1):337. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv096 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Eisele TP, Keating J, Littrell M, Larsen D, Macintyre K. Assessment of insecticide-treated bednet use among children and pregnant women across 15 countries using standardized national surveys. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2009;80(2):209–14. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2009.80.209 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Igbinoba AO, Soola EO, Omojola O, Odukoya J, Adekeye O, Salau OP. Women’s mass media exposure and maternal health awareness in Ota, Nigeria. Cogent Social Sciences. 2020;6(1). doi: 10.1080/23311886.2020.1766260 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Okunlola O, Oloja S, Ebiwonjumi A, Oyeyemi O. Vegetation index and livestock practices as predictors of malaria transmission in Nigeria. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):9565. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-60385-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Afoakwah C, Deng X, Onur I. Malaria infection among children under-five: the use of large-scale interventions in Ghana. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):536. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5428-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Osborne A, Ahinkorah BO. The paternal influence on early childhood development in Africa: implications for child and adolescent mental health. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2024;18(1):156. doi: 10.1186/s13034-024-00847-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bayode T, Siegmund A. Social determinants of malaria prevalence among children under five years: A cross-sectional analysis of Akure, Nigeria. Scientific African. 2022;16:e01196. doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01196 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Oshagbemi OA, Lopez-Romero P, Winnips C, Csermak KR, Su G, Aubrun E. Estimated distribution of malaria cases among children in sub-Saharan Africa by specified age categories using data from the Global Burden of Diseases 2019. Malar J. 2023;22(1):371. doi: 10.1186/s12936-023-04811-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ibrahim AO, Bello IS, Shabi OM, Omonijo AO, Ayodapo A, Afolabi BA. Malaria infection and its association with socio-demographics, preventive measures, and co-morbid ailments among adult febrile patients in rural Southwestern Nigeria: a cross-sectional study. SAGE Open Med. 2022;10:20503121221117853. doi: 10.1177/20503121221117853 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Muhye A, Abate MA, Ayehu A, Dejen P. Asymptomatic plasmodium infection and predictors among schoolchildren in Bahir Dar Zuria District, Northwest Ethiopia. Malar J. 2025. doi: 10.1186/s12936-025-05695-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ibrahim AO, Agbesanwa TA, Aremu SK, Bello IS, Elegbede OT, Gabriel-Alayode OE, et al. Malaria infection and its association with socio-demographics, long lasting insecticide nets usage and hematological parameters among adolescent patients in rural Southwestern Nigeria. PLoS One. 2023;18(7):e0287723. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287723 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Dawaki S, Al-Mekhlafi HM, Ithoi I, Ibrahim J, Atroosh WM, Abdulsalam AM, et al. Is Nigeria winning the battle against malaria? Prevalence, risk factors and KAP assessment among Hausa communities in Kano State. Malar J. 2016;15:351. doi: 10.1186/s12936-016-1394-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Zerdo Z, Bastiaens H, Anthierens S, Massebo F, Masne M, Biresaw G, et al. Prevalence and associated risk factors of asymptomatic malaria and anaemia among school-aged children in Dara Mallo and Uba Debretsehay districts: results from baseline cluster randomized trial. Malar J. 2021;20(1):400. doi: 10.1186/s12936-021-03937-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Onyiah AP, Ajayi IO, Dada-Adegbola HO, Adedokun BO, Balogun MS, Nguku PM, et al. Long-lasting insecticidal net use and asymptomatic malaria parasitaemia among household members of laboratory-confirmed malaria patients attending selected health facilities in Abuja, Nigeria, 2016: a cross-sectional survey. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0203686. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203686 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0006693.r001

Decision Letter 0

Rajiv Sarkar

2 Aug 2025

PGPH-D-25-01049

Age-specific factors associated with Malaria among children of age 6-23.9 months and 24-59 months in Nigeria using the 2018 Demographic Health and Survey data.

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Choi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 16 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rajiv Sarkar

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. We have amended your Competing Interest statement to comply with journal style. We kindly ask that you double check the statement and let us know if anything is incorrect.

2. Please provide a/amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that Data described in the manuscript, code book, and analytic code are publicly available in the DHS website by request.

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either

1. In a public repository,

2. Within the manuscript itself, or

3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues.

4. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures#loc-file-requirements

5. Please upload a copy of Figure 1, 2, 3 which you refer to in your text on page 6, 8, 16. Or, if the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.-->

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: -The authors mentioned the data was collected from a cross sectional study. In the abstract results section, presentation of important results was not clear. Proper presentation of results including OR and 95% CI should be included to guide the readers early. This should be done for the most important variables.

-Variable selection process from univariable to multivariable logistic regression using a cut-off p-value is not the most reliable method. Did the authors consider backward/forward stepwise regression approach?

-The use and interpretation of OR in a cross sectional study is not ideal. At best, a cross sectional study will tell us about prevalence of a disease thus the appropriate measure of association would be prevalence odds ratios (POR).

-Conclusion section (lines 340-347) does not say much and is very vague. In public health studies of this nature, what is the overall message concerning modifiable risk factors that can result in lower prevalence of malaria in the age groups. Many of the independent variables analyzed in this study are not modifiable risk factors and thus do not provide any actionable information that would help policy or prevention strategies despite significant association with malaria.

-Limitation section (lines 335-336): authors state that this study does not have causal interpretation. Obviously from the statistical analysis methods used there is no possibility of causal interpretation, am not sure how this can be considered a limitation.

-If possible please improve tabular presentation of results. It was not easy to read through and follow the results as currently presented.

Reviewer #2: Data were drawn from the 2018 Nigeria DHS, a large, cross-sectional, active surveillance program that has produced abundant epidemiological risk factor data for many diverse diseases in LMICs throughout the world. The goal of this study was “(t)o better understand how malaria outcomes and associated factors may differ between younger and older children over the age of 2 (24-59 months) as this would encourage future interventions to target younger and older children differently for increased effectiveness. The authors were appropriately conservative in defining malaria “positive” status, by indicating: “To increase specificity, children who had both results of LM and RDT as negative were considered to not have malaria and those with only one negative result, but no result of the other testing method were excluded from analysis” (ln 88).

Major Issues

The data from children under five were analyzed, but older children (i.e. “school-age children”) were not considered. The authors should better explain why only children aged less than 5 yrs were chosen, and why older children were not included in the analysis. This is particularly important because of increasing evidence that “school-age children” are very often infected with Plasmodium, but are much less often ill with malaria. Whether under-5 children need to be particularly targeted for malaria prevention might depend on the infection prevalence and/or disease burden in older children, as well as adults.

Malaria is not an infection, it is a disease. The authors should change “malaria infection” to “Plasmodium infection” throughout. The RDT or LM results, which indicate Plasmodium infection, may or may not demonstrate malaria disease, as many children (especially the older group) can be Plasmodium-positive without having malaria-like symptoms. This is especially true in an active, household-visit surveillance where the result of a blood test (but not of symptoms) is the only criterion used to designate each child’s status. Change “malaria status” to “infection status” or “Plasmodium status” throughout. This nuance of infection vs. disease is especially important to consider when interpreting and discussing the results of the study.

A conceptual framework for underlying risk factors is presented (Fig. 1), but no hypotheses are stated. What is the origin of this diagrammatic framework and how does it help in the design of questions and analysis that were used? Without such information, this research could be considered just a “fishing expedition.” What is the rationale for choosing “malaria” as the only “outcome” in the statistical models? Could “malaria” be an underlying cause of malnutrition or other factors that are “upstream” in the pathway diagram? If so, how might that change the analysis? Why are there no “return” arrows to indicate possible feedback, as has been demonstrated in many studies of malaria epidemiology? Why were interactions between variables not considered in the multivariable regressions? This might help disentangle risk factors for exposure to, and detection of, Plasmodium infection.

The authors should consider how they might include, or at least cite, the approach and figures presented in these articles:

de Castro and Fisher. (2012). Malaria Journal 11:161

http://www.malariajournal.com/content/11/1/161

Tusting et al. (2016). Infectious Diseases of Poverty 5:78

DOI 10.1186/s40249-016-0164-3

Jezek and Bamodu (2021) Health Res Policy Sys 19:93

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-021-00700-6

In general, the Discussion needs to be developed further. While the authors recognize that this cross-sectional study cannot determine causation, the suggestion that various risk factors “contribute to” malaria, should be considered more carefully. Anemia, poverty, rurality, agriculture, nutrition, mother’s knowledge, breastfeeding, ITN use (etc.) are all “correlated with” or “contribute to” Plasmodium infection and malaria disease, but this has already been shown in literally hundreds of studies. What is new here? One way to help advance our understanding is to discuss the findings in the context of other studies that have shown similar, but also different, findings. Most of the associations that are discussed present only one citation that has also found the same association. There are many published reports on the epidemiology of Plasmodium infection and malaria disease in Nigeria that should be cited to introduce and justify this report. Similarly, comparing the results of the current report with those from other studies in the region would strengthen the value and validity of findings.

A brief discussion of how the patterns for these younger children are similar to or different than those of other age groups could be informative. Even if not fully analyzed, briefly comparing infection patterns in older children and adults, as summarized in the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey published report, would be helpful. In addition, a more thoughtful and considered comparison of this study’s major themes with those of other comparable studies would strengthen this report. Similarly, an analysis that considers how positive and negative “feedback” (as mentioned previously) might affect the associations, even producing counter-intuitive results, would enlighten readers.

Anopheles mosquitoes are not simply the “primary vector” of Plasmodium spp. to humans; certain Anopheles species are the sole vectors. It is naïve to treat all vector-competent Anopheles species as the same. e.g. (ln. 278) where it is stated that “This exposes the children to vector-friendly environments as agricultural land harbors water pools without nearby vegetation.” A few important Anopheles species almost exclusively breed in water with vegetation, or in human-made water containers. The discussion of Anopheles vectors should be corrected.

Minor

Ln 86: Define LM and RDT on first use

Ln 132: Remove the three stippled bars in Fig. 2 (they add no information)

Ln 310: Remove the word “effect” in “… differential effect of educational factors …”

Ln 341: Change the word “impacts” in “ … analyze the differential impacts of …”

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0006693.r003

Decision Letter 1

Rajiv Sarkar, Rajiv Sarkar

12 Feb 2026

PGPH-D-25-01049R1

Identifying age-common and age-specific factors of Plasmodium infection in Nigerian children under five: application of a cluster-aware multistage selection framework to the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Kang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 14 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rajiv Sarkar

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

1. Please reformat the abstract as an unstructured abstract to comply with the journal’s requirements.

2. Please proof-read the manuscript carefully. The text presently shifts between first-person and third-person pronouns; adopting one pronoun style consistently will improve clarity and coherence.

3. Please restructure the Discussion section by removing the subheadings and presenting the key findings in relation to existing literature, and highlighting the unique contributions of this study, where applicable. Additionally, the limitations could be presented as a single paragraph before the Conclusion section, without a separate heading.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.-->

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: The authors need to update presentation of results in the abstract section. The results are presented in a way that is confusing to someone who may be reading the paper the first time, and for someone who has reviewed this work an indication of 'laziness' to properly quote the PR and 95% CI for every statement result.

The research is about Plasmodium infection in this population. In a number of sections the authors referred to this as malaria, please revise for consistency.

The analysis was done from data from 2018, almost a decade ago. Time may be an issue here.

The discussion section has improved a little, but better description on why PR is higher among households with ITNs, while PR is lower among children using ITNs.

Reviewer #2: The authors have carefully explained and justified responses to this Reviewer’s questions and concerns. The reason why children 5 years and older were not included in the analysis is now explained in the text. Revision of certain terms (e.g. Plasmodium infection) has been completed. They have done a nice job of developing hypotheses for what associations were predicted and why. The value of the conceptual framework (Fig. 1) is better explained, and is now presented as a Directed Acyclic Graph which is much more useful as a complement to the analytical plan. Interaction terms are now included as part of the analysis. The authors have briefly compared their findings with those from other studies, in particular by identifying the likely bidirectional feedback in some of the observed associations.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

--> -->-->Figure Resubmissions:

-->-->While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.-->-->

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.-->

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0006693.r005

Decision Letter 2

Rajiv Sarkar, Rajiv Sarkar, Julia Robinson

2 Jun 2026

Identifying age-common and age-specific factors of Plasmodium infection in Nigerian children under five: application of a cluster-aware multistage selection framework to the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey

PGPH-D-25-01049R2

Dear Dr Kang,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Identifying age-common and age-specific factors of Plasmodium infection in Nigerian children under five: application of a cluster-aware multistage selection framework to the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Julia Robinson

Executive Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.-->

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Full list and definitions of covariates evaluated in the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection to identify age-common and age-specific factors associated with Plasmodium infection among children under 5 years in Nigeria, based on the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

    Raw covariates were merged, filtered, or recoded as needed to create more interpretable, generalizable, and epidemiologically meaningful variables. The Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) Standard Recode Manual and the Guide to DHS Statistics (DHS-7) were consulted in constructing these covariates.

    (XLSX)

    pgph.0006693.s001.xlsx (18KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. Diagnostic assessments for models used to tune threshold parameters in the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection identifying age-common and age-specific factors associated with Plasmodium infection among children under five in Nigeria, 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

    Tuning parameters included the method (minimum-error or 1-standard-error) used to determine the penalty λ term for least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression in Step 1; the proportion of bootstrap trials required for a covariate to pass Step 1; the p-value cutoff for identifying candidate age-specific covariates in Step 2; the p-value cutoff for selecting significant covariates in Step 3; the cutoff of modified quasi-likelihood information criterion improvement for identifying model-improving covariates in Step 3; and the cutoff of relative prevalence ratio changes for identifying potential confounding covariates in Step 3. For each model, we report the Pearson dispersion statistic, the modified quasi-likelihood information criterion, the calibration correlation coefficient, the Rao–Scott adjusted global model test, the cross-validated Brier score and bins grouped by 0.1% increments of the best score, and the number of estimated parameters. Models were ranked first by their Brier score bins and, within ties, by parsimony. Selected model is highlighted in black. The tuning parameters from the top-ranked model were selected. Abbreviations: F = Rao-Scott F statistic; λ = penalty term used for least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression; dQIC = difference in the simplified quasi-likelihood information criterion; dPR = change in prevalence ratio; φ = Pearson dispersion statistic; QICu = simplified quasi-likelihood information criterion; r = calibration correlation coefficient.

    (XLSX)

    pgph.0006693.s002.xlsx (23.3KB, xlsx)
    S3 Table. Step-by-step results of the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection identifying age-common and age-specific factors associated with Plasmodium infection among children under five in Nigeria, 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

    Variable selection results from the three-stage covariate screening procedure. Community-level factors were defined as primary sampling unit level proportions of individuals exhibiting each covariate, and individual-level factors were measured directly for each child. In Step 1, survey-weighted least absolute shrinkage and selection operator with stratified primary sampling unit bootstrapping retained covariates selected in ≥60% of bootstrap replicates. In Step 2, generalized linear models (GLMs) with bootstrapping identified candidate age-varying covariates when age-interaction terms were significant in ≥60% of replicates; remaining covariates were treated as candidate age-common covariates. In Step 3, backward elimination with forward reassessment retained covariates that showed significant associations with Plasmodium infection, improved model fit by modified quasi-information criterion changes, or acted as confounders based on changes in mean or maximum prevalence ratios. Refer to S1 Text for details. The final age pattern (“age-common” or “age-specific”) and retention status are reported for each covariate. Abbreviations: LASSO = Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator; GLM = Generalized Linear Model; DAG = Directed Acyclic Graph; BMI = Body Mass Index; ITN = Insecticide-Treated Net; QICu = simplified quasi-likelihood information criterion; dQIC = QICu of reduced model minus QICu of retained model; PR = prevalence ratio; dPR = Relative prevalence ratio change.

    (XLSX)

    pgph.0006693.s003.xlsx (14.2KB, xlsx)
    S4 Table. Covariate-level results from the final Cluster-aware Multistage Selection model identifying age-common and age-specific factors associated with Plasmodium infection among children under five in Nigeria, 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

    Community-level factors were defined as primary sampling unit level proportions of individuals exhibiting each covariate, and individual-level factors were measured directly for each child. Model statistics are reported for covariates retained in the final survey-weighted quasi-Poisson regression model with a log link following the multi-level, three-stage, survey-design-aware, bidirectional covariate selection procedure. Interaction terms between the age-bin indicator (24–59 months versus 6–23.9 months) and each covariate X are presented as Age × X. Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; ITN = insecticide-treated nets.

    (XLSX)

    pgph.0006693.s004.xlsx (13.7KB, xlsx)
    S1 Fig. Prevalence of Plasmodium infection among younger (6–23.9 months) and older (24–59 months) children in Nigeria, 2018 Demographic and Health Survey.

    Weighted prevalence of Plasmodium infection among children aged 6–59 months, stratified by younger and older age groups. Children testing positive by either rapid diagnostic test or light microscopy were classified as malaria-positive; those negative on both tests were classified as malaria-negative. Estimates incorporate sampling weights, clustering, and geographic stratification.

    (TIF)

    pgph.0006693.s005.tif (1.8MB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Covariate retention across 144 tuning configurations in the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection identifying age-common and age-specific factors associated with Plasmodium infection among children under five in Nigeria, 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

    The Cluster-aware Multistage Selection framework included several tunable components. Step 1 varied the LASSO penalty-rule for λ (minimum-error vs 1-standard-error). Steps 1–2 varied the stratified PSU-level bootstrap selection threshold (30% vs 60%) and Step 2 used p-value cutoffs of 0.20, 0.15, or 0.05. Step 3 applied stricter p-value thresholds (0.15, 0.10, 0.05), simplified quasi-likelihood information criterion or QICu of reduced model minus retained model tolerances of (−2, 0, or +2), and confounding thresholds based on relative mean/maximum PR changes (20%/40% or 10%/20%). These combinations yielded 144 unique tuning configurations. Models were ranked by Brier-score bins and, within bins, by parsimony. In the plot, models are ordered left to right from highest to lowest ranking. For each model, covariates are shown as retained (X) or excluded; if retained, associations are colored as significant increasing (red), significant decreasing (blue), or non-significant (grey). Results are presented separately for younger (6–23.9 months) and older (24–59 months) children, with age-common and age-specific associations distinguished by shading intensity. Abbreviations: BMI = body mass index; ITN = insecticide-treated nets.

    (TIF)

    pgph.0006693.s006.tif (5.9MB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Residual and calibration plots for the final model selected using the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection to identify age-common and age-specific factors associated with Plasmodium infection among children under five in Nigeria, 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

    Model selected from the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection was evaluated using residual–fitted plots, and calibration was assessed by comparing survey-weighted observed prevalence with predicted probabilities across deciles of fitted probabilities.

    (TIF)

    pgph.0006693.s007.tif (837.4KB, tif)
    S1 Text. Statistical methods used in the Cluster-aware Multistage Selection to identify age-common and age-specific factors of Plasmodium infection among children under five in Nigeria, using the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.

    (PDF)

    pgph.0006693.s008.pdf (153.2KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pgph.0006693.s010.docx (33.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pgph.0006693.s011.docx (30.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    This study used de-identified data from the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS). Researchers may request access through the DHS Program data portal (https://dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm) by registering for an account, submitting a research project description, selecting the 2018 Nigeria DHS, and agreeing to the DHS data-use conditions. Following approval, researchers may download the dataset and its accompanying documentation and codebook. The DHS recode files used in this study were NGKR7BFL.DTA (Children’s Recode), NGPR7BFL.DTA (Household Member Recode), and NGHR7BFL.DTA (Household Recode). Because DHS data-use conditions prohibit redistribution, the recode files are not included with this article or in the code repository. No DOI or accession number is assigned to the 2018 Nigeria DHS microdata. The full R code is publicly available at https://github.com/woojae1995/Nigeria_DHS_2018_age_specific_RF.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES