Achieving good health and well-being in Africa by 2030 using multi-state models, survival analysis, statistical methods for evidence-based medicine, diagnosis and determination of risk factors
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
Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) were adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2015 for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG3) is ‘Better health and well-being by 2030’. According to WHO, good health in the context of SDG3 is assessed with respect to the level and distribution of individuals’ and communities’ healthy life, conditions that affect health and well-being and risk factors whose presence would affect health and well-being. The overall aim is that each SDG target is achieved by 2030. In 2018 the WHO used statistical methods to assess the state of health in Africa in the context of SDG3. Their analysis revealed successes and shortfalls towards attaining SDG3. Backed by public health and other activities, statistics play an important role in improving the health and well-being of Africa. This paper explains how statistics can be used to help African countries to attain SDG3, in its role in modeling event histories, diagnosis, evidence-based medicine, determination of risk factors of exposures of morbidity and mortality, determination of risk factors of morbidity and mortality, the computation of the level and distribution of vital events, measuring disease frequency and progress, quantification of life expectancy and monitoring and evaluation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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