A Syndrome-Based Surveillance System for Infectious Diseases Among Asylum Seekers in Austrian Reception Centers, 2015-2018: Analysis of Reported Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Austria has been among the main European countries hosting incoming asylum seekers since 2015. Consequently, there was an urgent need to predict any public health threats associated with the arriving asylum seekers. The Department of Surveillance and Infectious Disease Epidemiology at the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES) was mandated to implement a national syndrome-based surveillance system in the 7 reception centers by the Austrian Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Health. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to analyze the occurrence and spread of infectious diseases among asylum seekers using data reported by reception centers through the syndrome-based surveillance system from September 2015 through February 2018. METHODS: We deployed a daily data collection system for 13 syndromes: rash with fever; rash without fever; acute upper respiratory tract infection; acute lower respiratory tract infection; meningitis or encephalitis; fever and bleeding; nonbloody gastroenteritis or watery diarrhea; bloody diarrhea; acute jaundice; skin, soft tissue, or bone abnormalities; acute flaccid paralysis; high fever with no other signs; and unexplained death. General practitioners, the first professionals to consult for health problems at reception centers in Austria, sent the tally sheets on identified syndromes daily to the AGES. RESULTS: We identified a total of 2914 cases, presenting 8 of the 13 syndromes. A total of 405 signals were triggered, and 6.4% (26/405) of them generated alerts. Suspected acute upper respiratory tract infection (1470/2914, 50.45% of cases), rash without fever (1174/2914, 40.29% of cases), suspected acute lower respiratory tract infection (159/2914, 5.46% of cases), watery diarrhea (73/2914, 2.51% of cases), and skin, soft tissue, or bone abnormalities (32/2914, 1.10% of cases) were the top 5 syndromes. CONCLUSIONS: The cooperation of the AGES with reception center health care staff, supported by the 2 involved ministries, was shown to be useful for syndromic surveillance of infectious diseases among asylum seekers. None of the identified alerts escalated to an outbreak.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".