Electronic data capture for large scale typhoid surveillance, household contact tracing, and health utilisation survey: Strategic Typhoid Alliance across Africa and Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic data capture systems (EDCs) have the potential to achieve efficiency and quality in collection of multisite data. We quantify the volume, time, accuracy and costs of an EDC using large-scale census data from the STRATAA consortium, a comprehensive programme assessing population dynamics and epidemiology of typhoid fever in Malawi, Nepal and Bangladesh to inform vaccine and public health interventions. A census form was developed through a structured iterative process and implemented using Open Data Kit Collect running on Android-based tablets. Data were uploaded to Open Data Kit Aggregate, then auto-synced to MySQL-defined database nightly. Data were backed-up daily from three sites centrally, and auto-reported weekly. Pre-census materials' costs were estimated. Demographics of 308,348 individuals from 80,851 households were recorded within an average of 14.7 weeks range (13-16) using 65 fieldworkers. Overall, 21.7 errors (95% confidence interval: 21.4, 22.0) per 10,000 data points were found: 13.0 (95% confidence interval: 12.6, 13.5) and 24.5 (95% confidence interval: 24.1, 24.9) errors on numeric and text fields respectively. These values meet standard quality threshold of 50 errors per 10,000 data points. The EDC's total variable cost was estimated at US$13,791.82 per site. In conclusion, the EDC is robust, allowing for timely and high-volume accurate data collection, and could be adopted in similar epidemiological settings.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".