MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2191908927 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142498

Methodological Framework for World Health Organization Estimates of the Global Burden of Foodborne Disease

2015· article· en· W2191908927 on OpenAlexaff
Brecht Devleesschauwer, Juanita A. Haagsma, Frederick J. Angulo, David C. Bellinger, Dana Cole, Dörte Döpfer, Aamir Fazil, Eric M. Fèvre, Herman J. Gibb, Tine Hald, Martyn Kirk, Robin Lake, Charline Maertens de Noordhout, Colin Mathers, Scott McDonald, Sara M. Pires, Niko Speybroeck, M. Kate Thomas, Paul R. Torgerson, Felicia Wu, Arie H. Havelaar, Nicolas Praet

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Safety and Hygiene
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionInstitute for Health Metrics and EvaluationWorld Health Organization
KeywordsBurden of diseaseGlobal healthDiseaseEnvironmental healthMEDLINEData scienceBiologyMedicinePublic healthComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group (FERG) was established in 2007 by the World Health Organization to estimate the global burden of foodborne diseases (FBDs). This paper describes the methodological framework developed by FERG's Computational Task Force to transform epidemiological information into FBD burden estimates. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The global and regional burden of 31 FBDs was quantified, along with limited estimates for 5 other FBDs, using Disability-Adjusted Life Years in a hazard- and incidence-based approach. To accomplish this task, the following workflow was defined: outline of disease models and collection of epidemiological data; design and completion of a database template; development of an imputation model; identification of disability weights; probabilistic burden assessment; and estimating the proportion of the disease burden by each hazard that is attributable to exposure by food (i.e., source attribution). All computations were performed in R and the different functions were compiled in the R package 'FERG'. Traceability and transparency were ensured by sharing results and methods in an interactive way with all FERG members throughout the process. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a comprehensive framework for estimating the global burden of FBDs, in which methodological simplicity and transparency were key elements. All the tools developed have been made available and can be translated into a user-friendly national toolkit for studying and monitoring food safety at the local level.

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)0.281
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.375
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2810.375
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.006
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0070.009
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.050 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations147
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicFood Safety and HygieneFrench-language works237,207