Contributing to Elimination of Cross-Border Malaria Through a Standardized Solution for Case Surveillance, Data Sharing, and Data Interpretation: Development of a Cross-Border Monitoring System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cross-border malaria is a significant obstacle to achieving malaria control and elimination worldwide. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to build a cross-border surveillance system that can make comparable and qualified data available to all parties involved in malaria control between French Guiana and Brazil. METHODS: Data reconciliation rules based on expert knowledge were defined and applied to the heterogeneous data provided by the existing malaria surveillance systems of both countries. Visualization dashboards were designed to facilitate progressive data exploration, analysis, and interpretation. Dedicated advanced open source and robust software solutions were chosen to facilitate solution sharing and reuse. RESULTS: A database gathering the harmonized data on cross-border malaria epidemiology is updated monthly with new individual malaria cases from both countries. Online dashboards permit a progressive and user-friendly visualization of raw data and epidemiological indicators, in the form of time series, maps, and data quality indexes. The monitoring system was shown to be able to identify changes in time series that are related to control actions, as well as differentiated changes according to space and to population subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This cross-border monitoring tool could help produce new scientific evidence on cross-border malaria dynamics, implementing cross-border cooperation for malaria control and elimination, and can be quickly adapted to other cross-border contexts.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | medium |
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 | 0.047 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".