MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507377076 · doi:10.1017/s0950268816001850

Pandemic Risk Assessment Model (PRAM): a mathematical modeling approach to pandemic influenza planning

2016· article· en· W2507377076 on OpenAlexaffabout
Douglas C. Dover, Erin Kirwin, Nancy Hernández-Cerón, Kyria Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology and Infection · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicStockpileInfluenza pandemicPandemic influenzaH1n1 pandemicPopulationPublic healthRisk assessmentOperations researchVirologyEnvironmental healthComputer scienceMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political scienceComputer securityInfectious disease (medical specialty)DiseaseEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Pandemic Risk Assessment Model (PRAM) is a mathematical model developed to analyse two pandemic influenza control measures available to public health: antiviral treatment and immunization. PRAM is parameterized using surveillance data from Alberta, Canada during pandemic H1N1. Age structure and risk level are incorporated in the compartmental, deterministic model through a contact matrix. The model characterizes pandemic influenza scenarios by transmissibility and severity properties. Simulating a worst-case scenario similar to the 1918 pandemic with immediate stockpile release, antiviral demand is 20·3% of the population. With concurrent, effective and timely immunization strategies, antiviral demand would be significantly less. PRAM will be useful in informing policy decisions such as the size of the Alberta antiviral stockpile and can contribute to other pandemic influenza planning activities and scenario analyses.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.292
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiology and InfectionSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207