Big Data Usage Patterns in the Health Care Domain: A Use Case Driven Approach Applied to the Assessment of Vaccination Benefits and Risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Generally benefits and risks of vaccines can be determined from studies carried out as part of regulatory compliance, followed by surveillance of routine data; however there are some rarer and more long term events that require new methods. Big data generated by increasingly affordable personalised computing, and from pervasive computing devices is rapidly growing and low cost, high volume, cloud computing makes the processing of these data inexpensive. OBJECTIVE: To describe how big data and related analytical methods might be applied to assess the benefits and risks of vaccines. METHOD: We reviewed the literature on the use of big data to improve health, applied to generic vaccine use cases, that illustrate benefits and risks of vaccination. We defined a use case as the interaction between a user and an information system to achieve a goal. We used flu vaccination and pre-school childhood immunisation as exemplars. RESULTS: We reviewed three big data use cases relevant to assessing vaccine benefits and risks: (i) Big data processing using crowdsourcing, distributed big data processing, and predictive analytics, (ii) Data integration from heterogeneous big data sources, e.g. the increasing range of devices in the "internet of things", and (iii) Real-time monitoring for the direct monitoring of epidemics as well as vaccine effects via social media and other data sources. CONCLUSIONS: Big data raises new ethical dilemmas, though its analysis methods can bring complementary real-time capabilities for monitoring epidemics and assessing vaccine benefit-risk balance.
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 | 0.029 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".