A Quarter Century of Emerging Infectious Diseases – Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A quarter century ago the landmark report from the U. S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine entitled "Emerging Infections, Microbial Threats to Health in the United States" was released. This classic study captured the societal changes then underway in our rapidly growing world: The growth of the world's population and changing human behavior; the advances and globalization of technology and industry; the changes in economic development and land use; the dramatic increase in speed and frequency of international travel and commerce; the adaptation of microbes and the appearance of never before seen pathogens; and the breakdown of traditional public health measures. This societal evolution has only increased and the growing frequency of outbreaks foretold in the report has come to pass. Each new disaster has precipitated changes and adaptations in our global response to infectious diseases designed to reduce risks and avoid future outbreaks. We discuss these past events and how each led to change in an effort to mitigate future threats. We also look to the future to consider what challenges might lay ahead. CONCLUSION: Major outbreaks over the past quarter century validated the concept of emerging infectious diseases and led to improvements in global policies and national public health programs; however, there will likely always be new diseases and the threat of reemergence of diseases once thought controlled leading to a constant need for vigilance in public health preparedness.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".