Large-scale data reporting of paediatric morbidity and mortality in developing countries: it can be done
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the WHO recommends all countries use International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 coding for reporting health data, accurate health facility data are rarely available in developing or low and middle income countries. Compliance with ICD-10 is extremely resource intensive, and the lack of real data seriously undermines evidence-based approaches to improving quality of care and to clinical and public health programme management. We developed a simple tool for the collection of accurate admission and outcome data and implemented it in 16 provincial hospitals in Papua New Guinea over 6 years. The programme was low cost and easy to use by ward clerks and nurses. Over 6 years, it gathered data on the causes of 96,998 admissions of children and 7128 deaths. National reports on child morbidity and mortality were produced each year summarising the incidence and mortality rates for 21 common conditions of children and newborns, and the lessons learned for policy and practice. These data informed the National Policy and Plan for Child Health, triggered the implementation of a process of clinical quality improvement and other interventions to reduce mortality in the neediest areas, focusing on diseases with the highest burdens. It is possible to collect large-scale data on paediatric morbidity and mortality, to be used locally by health workers who gather it, and nationally for improving policy and practice, even in very resource-limited settings where ICD-10 coding systems such as those that exist in some high-income countries are not feasible or affordable.
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 | 0.075 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".