Association Between Component Costs, Study Methodologies, and Foodborne Illness–Related Factors with the Cost of Nontyphoidal <i>Salmonella</i> Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nontyphoidal Salmonella spp. are one of the most common causes of bacterial foodborne illness. Variability in cost inventories and study methodologies limits the possibility of meaningfully interpreting and comparing cost-of-illness (COI) estimates, reducing their usefulness. However, little is known about the relative effect these factors have on a cost-of-illness estimate. This is important for comparing existing estimates and when designing new cost-of-illness studies. Cost-of-illness estimates, identified through a scoping review, were used to investigate the association between descriptive, component cost, methodological, and foodborne illness-related factors such as chronic sequelae and under-reporting with the cost of nontyphoidal Salmonella spp. illness. The standardized cost of nontyphoidal Salmonella spp. illness from 30 estimates reported in 29 studies ranged from $0.01568 to $41.22 United States dollars (USD)/person/year (2012). The mean cost of nontyphoidal Salmonella spp. illness was $10.37 USD/person/year (2012). The following factors were found to be significant in multiple linear regression (p≤0.05): the number of direct component cost categories included in an estimate (0-4, particularly long-term care costs) and chronic sequelae costs (inclusion/exclusion), which had positive associations with the cost of nontyphoidal Salmonella spp. illness. Factors related to study methodology were not significant. Our findings indicated that study methodology may not be as influential as other factors, such as the number of direct component cost categories included in an estimate and costs incurred due to chronic sequelae. Therefore, these may be the most important factors to consider when designing, interpreting, and comparing cost of foodborne illness studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.149 | 0.368 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".