Table 2. Model predictions of timelines to achieve 1% mf prevalence and corresponding information metrics.

Model	Site	Scenario#	No. of accepted models	Median no. of years (2.5th-97.5th percentiles) (significance*)	Weighted variance (significance*)	Entropy (significance*)	Relative information gained by data (%)+
EPIFIL	Kirare	0	865	9 (6–19)1,2,3,4	14.711,2,3,4	3.511,2,3,4	-
		1	829	8 (6–17)0,2,3,4	10.370,3,4	3.130,2,3,4	12.06
		2	117	14 (11–21)0,1	8.660,4	3.270,1,4	6.84
		3	105	14 (11–18)0,1	5.820,1	3.060,1,4	12.82
		4	175	12 (10–18)0,1	5.730,1,2	2.920,1,2,3	16.81
	Alagramam	0	15098	10 (7–23)1,2,3,4	19.621,2,3,4	3.691,2,3,4	-
		1	16410	9 (7–21) 0,2,3,4	14.350,3,4	3.530,2,3,4	4.34
		2	11026	11 (8–22)0,2,3,4	14.440,3,4	3.590,1,3,4	2.71
		3	10351	11 (8–19)0,1,2,4	9.600,1,2,4	3.380,1,2,4	8.4
		4	15735	9 (7–18)0,1,2,3	10.030,1,2,3	3.360,1,2,3	8.94
	Peneng	0	4610	12 (6–29)1,2,3,4	38.241,2,3,4	4.291,2,3,4	-
		1	4255	10 (6–25)0,2,3,4	26.920,2,3,4	4.020,2,3,4	6.29
		2	2714	10 (7–17)0,1,3,4	8.370,1,3,4	3.290,1,3,4	23.31
		3	2172	9 (7–12)0,1,2,4	3.040,1,2,4	2.640,1,2,4	38.46
		4	2728	8 (6–12)0,1,2,3	3.860,1,2,3	2.80,1,2,3	34.73
LYMFASIM	Kirare	0	6471	11 (7–28)1,2	35.311,2,3,4	4.192,3,4	-
		1	901	10 (6–34)0,2	50.910,2,3,4	4.202,3,4	-0.24
		2	363	13 (10–20)0,1,3,4	9.500,3,4	3.310,1,3,4	21.00
		3	224	11 (9–14)2	1.870,1,2	2.390,1,2	42.96
		4	245	11 (9–14)2	2.020,1,2	2.410,1,2	42.48
	Alagramam	0	6903	12 (9–21)1,2,3,4	15.461,2,3,4	3.383,4	-
		1	2906	11 (9–22)0,2,3,4	20.440,3,4	3.373,4	0.30
		2	2148	13 (10–24)0,1,3,4	22.380,3,4	3.453,4	-2.07
		3	1966	12 (10–19)0,1,2,4	11.110,1,2,4	2.870,1,2	15.09
		4	2790	11 (9–17)0,1,2,3	7.370,1,2,3	2.800,1,2	17.16
	Peneng	0	4195	12 (7–26)2,3,4	32.022,3,4	4.262,3,4	-
		1	3772	12 (6–26)2,3,4	30.862,3,4	4.242,3,4	0.47
		2	1531	10 (7–13)0,1	2.220,1	2.530,1	40.61
		3	1581	10 (8–13)0,1	2.190,1	2.530.1	40.61
		4	1655	10 (7–13)0,1	2.330,1	2.560,1	39.91
TRANSFIL	Kirare	0	6866	13 (7–43)1,2,3,4	81.781,2,3,4	4.661,2,3,4	-
		1	17625	11 (7–27)0,2	32.620.2,3,4	4.000,2,3,4	14.16
		2	6414	13 (10–26)0,1,3,4	22.260,1,3,4	3.500,1,3,4	24.89
		3	2108	11 (9–15)2	3.190,1,2,4	2.560,1,2,4	45.06
		4	5405	11 (9–15)2	2.830,1,2,3	2.540.1,2,3	45.49
	Alagramam	0	9666	15 (9–42)2,3,4	72.861,2,3,4	4.601,2,3,4	-
		1	9109	15 (9–50)2,3,4	155.570,3,4	4.520,2,3,4	1.74
		2	5555	18 (11–50)0,1,3,4	146.860,3,4	4.590,1,3,4	0.22
		3	528	12 (11–15)0,1,2	4.460,1,2,4	2.020,1,2,4	56.09
		4	383	11 (10–15)0,1,2	5.330,1,2,3	2.460,1,2,3	46.52
	Peneng	0	7014	21 (8–48)1,2,3,4	100.371,2,3,4	5.161,2,3,4	-
		1	55425	16 (7–41)0,2,3,4	70.430,2,3,4	4.810.2,3,4	6.78
		2	8892	10 (6–22)0,1,3,4	15.990,1,3,4	3.770,1,3,4	26.94
		3	7018	11 (7–22)0,1,2,4	14.540,1,2	3.620,1,2,4	29.84
		4	13922	11 (7–22)0,1,2,3	14.990,1,2	3.700,1,2,3	28.29

The lowest entropy scenario for each site is bolded and shaded grey. Additional scenarios shaded grey are not significantly different from the lowest entropy scenario.

^#Scenario 0: model-only; Scenario 1: baseline data; Scenario 2: baseline + post-MDA 3 data; Scenario 3: baseline + post-MDA 3 + post-MDA 5 data; Scenario 4: baseline + post-MDA 5 data

*For each pair of scenarios, pairwise F-tests for equality of variance were performed to compare the weighted variance, differential Shannon entropy tests were performed to compare the entropy, and Kruskal-Wallis multiple comparison tests were performed to compare medians. Pairwise significance is represented by reporting those scenarios which are statistically significantly different from each other by numbers (0–4) as superscripts. For example, the weighted variance for scenario 0 for Kirare has the superscript numbers (1–4) to indicate that the weighted variance for scenario 0 is significantly different from the weighted variance for scenarios 1–4. Significance was determined using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for controlling the false discovery rate (q = 0.05) in all pairwise statistical tests.

⁺information gained by each data stream (scenario 1–4) are presented in comparison to the information contained in the model-only simulation (scenario 0)