Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Apr 27.
Published in final edited form as: Adv Parasitol. 2014;84:151–208. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800099-1.00003-X

Figure 2. Relationship between metrics of malaria transmission.

Figure 2

(a) Annual FOI versus R0; Annual EIR versus R0: Derived from a malaria transmission model, with assumptions of heterogeneous biting and superinfection, of PfPR versus PfEIR (Smith et al., 2010). (b) SR versus R0: Derived from a malaria transmission model, with assumptions of heterogeneous biting and superinfection, of PfPR versus PfRc (Smith et al., 2010), assuming sporozoite rate is linearly proportional to PfPR. PR versus R0: Malaria transmission model, with assumptions of heterogeneous biting and superinfection (Smith et al., 2010). (c) Annual FOI versus annual EIR: Model of heterogeneous biting fitted to synthetic cohort data from Saradidi, Kenya (Smith et al., 2010). (d) SR versus annual EIR: Derived from a log-linear model of PfPR versus EIR (Gething et al., 2011), with the assumption that sporozoite rate is linearly proportional to PfPR; PR versus annual EIR: Log-linear model of PfPR versus EIR (Gething et al., 2011). (e) PR versus annual FOI: Derived from a log-linear model of PfPR versus EIR (Gething et al., 2011). (f) SR versus PR: Best-fit model for reported sporozoite rate-PfPR pairs (Smith et al., 2005).