Pediatric Case Finding in Madagascar: A Controlled, Prospective Population-based Assessment of Key Informant Productivity and Cost
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The Key Informant (KI) case finding method, which trains community members to screen children for eye problems and refer them to eye services, is a common strategy to identify and refer children with blindness and visual impairment. However, studies to date have not determined the benefit and cost of adding KIs to routine outreach activities.Methods: Four eye programs in Madagascar with established outreach camps added KIs to a portion of their camps distributed equally throughout their service region over a one year period. KIs recorded children screened and their attendance at an outreach camp. Outreach personnel used standardized registration forms to gather age, sex, visual acuity, diagnosis and treatment data. Costs were gathered for the KI program and outreach camps.Results: In one year, the 4 eye programs held 138 outreach camps, 43 with KIs. The KI camps were more productive than regular camps seeing an average of 61 and 24 children and 50 and 19 children with an eye problem, for KI and regular camps, respectively. The KI camps also saw more children with moderate or severe visual impairment or blindness with 21 and 8 children (per 10 camps) for KI and regular camps, respectively. A KI camp cost $463 ($642 vs. $179) more than a regular camp and $3 ($8 vs. $11) more per child seen.Conclusion: The KI method significantly increased the number of children attending outreach camps, at all levels of visual impairment and blindness, at a modest increase in costs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it