Improving Detection of Disease Re-emergence Using a Web-Based Tool (RED Alert): Design and Case Analysis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, the identification of infectious disease re-emergence is performed without describing specific quantitative criteria that can be used to identify re-emergence events consistently. This practice may lead to ineffective mitigation. In addition, identification of factors contributing to local disease re-emergence and assessment of global disease re-emergence require access to data about disease incidence and a large number of factors at the local level for the entire world. This paper presents Re-emerging Disease Alert (RED Alert), a web-based tool designed to help public health officials detect and understand infectious disease re-emergence. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to bring together a variety of disease-related data and analytics needed to help public health analysts answer the following 3 primary questions for detecting and understanding disease re-emergence: Is there a potential disease re-emergence at the local (country) level? What are the potential contributing factors for this re-emergence? Is there a potential for global re-emergence? METHODS: We collected and cleaned disease-related data (eg, case counts, vaccination rates, and indicators related to disease transmission) from several data sources including the World Health Organization (WHO), Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), World Bank, and Gideon. We combined these data with machine learning and visual analytics into a tool called RED Alert to detect re-emergence for the following 4 diseases: measles, cholera, dengue, and yellow fever. We evaluated the performance of the machine learning models for re-emergence detection and reviewed the output of the tool through a number of case studies. RESULTS: Our supervised learning models were able to identify 82%-90% of the local re-emergence events, although with 18%-31% (except 46% for dengue) false positives. This is consistent with our goal of identifying all possible re-emergences while allowing some false positives. The review of the web-based tool through case studies showed that local re-emergence detection was possible and that the tool provided actionable information about potential factors contributing to the local disease re-emergence and trends in global disease re-emergence. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first tool that focuses specifically on disease re-emergence and addresses the important challenges mentioned above.
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 | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".