Heterogeneity in Estimates of the Impact of Influenza on Population Mortality: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Influenza viruses are associated with a substantial global burden of morbidity and mortality every year. Estimates of influenza-associated mortality often vary between studies due to differences in study settings, methods, and measurement of outcomes. We reviewed 103 published articles assessing population-based influenza-associated mortality through searches of PubMed and Embase, and we identified considerable variation in the statistical methods used across studies. Studies using regression models with an influenza activity proxy applied 4 approaches to estimate influenza-associated mortality. The estimates increased with age and ranged widely, from -0.3-1.3 and 0.6-8.3 respiratory deaths per 100,000 population for children and adults, respectively, to 4-119 respiratory deaths per 100,000 population for older adults. Meta-regression analysis identified that study design features were associated with the observed variation in estimates. The estimates increased with broader cause-of-death classification and were higher for older adults than for children. The multiplier methods tended to produce lower estimates, while Serfling-type models were associated with higher estimates than other methods. No "average" estimate of excess mortality could reliably be made due to the substantial variability of the estimates, partially attributable to methodological differences in the studies. Standardization of methodology in estimation of influenza-associated mortality would permit improved comparisons in the future.
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 | 0.020 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".