Bridging the gap between evidence and policy for infectious diseases: How models can aid public health decision-making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dominant approach to decision-making in public health policy for infectious diseases relies heavily on expert opinion, which often applies empirical evidence to policy questions in a manner that is neither systematic nor transparent. Although systematic reviews are frequently commissioned to inform specific components of policy (such as efficacy), the same process is rarely applied to the full decision-making process. Mathematical models provide a mechanism through which empirical evidence can be methodically and transparently integrated to address such questions. However, such models are often considered difficult to interpret. In addition, models provide estimates that need to be iteratively re-evaluated as new data or considerations arise. Using the case study of a novel diagnostic for tuberculosis, a framework for improved collaboration between public health decision-makers and mathematical modellers that could lead to more transparent and evidence-driven policy decisions for infectious diseases in the future is proposed. The framework proposes that policymakers should establish long-term collaborations with modellers to address key questions, and that modellers should strive to provide clear explanations of the uncertainty of model structure and outputs. Doing so will improve the applicability of models and clarify their limitations when used to inform real-world public health policy decisions.
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 | 0.043 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".