MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057325411 · doi:10.1017/s0950268810000658

Enhanced surveillance for measles in low-incidence territories of the Russian Federation: defining a rate for suspected case investigation

2010· article· en· W2057325411 on OpenAlexaff
Tikhonova Nt, М. А. Бичурина, А. Г. Герасимова, O. V. ZVIRKUN, N. P. VLADIMEROVA, Mamaeva Ta, Galina Lipskaya, Susie ElSaadany, John S. Spika

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology and Infection · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsMeaslesRussian federationMedicineIncidence (geometry)Environmental healthPopulationEpidemiological surveillanceDemographyPediatricsEpidemiologyGeographyVirologyVaccinationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rate of case investigation for measles-like illness (MLI) is an important indicator for the quality of measles surveillance in countries targeting measles elimination. However, a benchmark rate is still being discussed. We assessed different rates of investigation in 11 territories of the Russian Federation with low reported measles incidence during the previous 4-7 years. Each territory maintained their existing surveillance activities and also undertook additional surveillance activities for MLI over a 3-year period. The annual routine rate of investigation varied from 0·06 to 1·8/100,000 population; the overall rate of investigation, including enhanced surveillance, varied from 1·4 to 7·2/100,000. Forty-nine (30·8%) of 159 measles cases detected were identified through enhanced surveillance. Based on the results of this study, the Russian Federation concluded that a rate of routine investigation of 2/100,000 provided the best balance between available resources and sensitivity for detection of measles cases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiology and InfectionSame topicVirology and Viral DiseasesFrench-language works237,207