MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581468326 · doi:10.5210/ojphi.v8i3.6937

KIWI: A technology for public health event monitoring and early warning detection

2016· article· en· W2581468326 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueOnline Journal of Public Health Informatics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsWarning systemPublic health surveillancePublic healthEvent monitoringEvent (particle physics)Disease surveillanceComputer scienceData collectionData scienceMedicineEnvironmental healthTelecommunicationsWireless sensor networkPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To introduce the Canadian Network for Public Health Intelligence's new Knowledge Integration using Web-based Intelligence (KIWI) technology, and to pefrom preliminary evaluation of the KIWI technology using a case study. The purpose of this new technology is to support surveillance activities by monitoring unstructured data sources for the early detection and awareness of potential public health threats. METHODS: A prototype of the KIWI technology, adapted for zoonotic and emerging diseases, was piloted by end-users with expertise in the field of public health and zoonotic/emerging disease surveillance. The technology was assessed using variables such as geographic coverage, user participation, and others; categorized by high-level attributes from evaluation guidelines for internet based surveillance systems. Special attention was given to the evaluation of the system's automated sense-making algorithm, which used variables such as sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Event-based surveillance evaluation was not applied to its full capacity as such an evaluation is beyond the scope of this paper. RESULTS: KIWI was piloted with user participation = 85.0% and geographic coverage within monitored sources = 83.9% of countries. The pilots, which focused on zoonotic and emerging diseases, lasted a combined total of 65 days and resulted in the collection of 3243 individual information pieces (IIP) and 2 community reported events (CRE) for processing. Ten sources were monitored during the second phase of the pilot, which resulted in 545 anticipatory intelligence signals (AIS). KIWI's automated sense-making algorithm (SMA) had sensitivity = 63.9% (95% CI: 60.2-67.5%), specificity = 88.6% (95% CI: 87.3-89.8%), positive predictive value = 59.8% (95% CI: 56.1-63.4%), and negative predictive value = 90.3% (95% CI: 89.0-91.4%). DISCUSSION: Literature suggests the need for internet based monitoring and surveillance systems that are customizable, integrated into collaborative networks of public health professionals, and incorporated into national surveillance activities. Results show that the KIWI technology is well posied to address some of the suggested challenges. A limitation of this study is that sample size for pilot participation was small for capturing overall readiness of integrating KIWI into regular surveillance activities. CONCLUSIONS: KIWI is a customizable technology developed within an already thriving collaborative platform used by public health professionals, and performs well as a tool for discipline-specific event monitoring and early warning signal detection.

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.294 · 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