Global diarrhoea-associated mortality estimates and models in children: Recommendations for dataset and study selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple factors contribute to variation in disease burden, including the type and quality of data, and inherent properties of the models used. Understanding how these factors affect mortality estimates is crucial, especially in the context of public health decision making. We examine how the quality of the studies selected to provide mortality data, influence estimates of burden and provide recommendations about the inclusion of studies and datasets to calculate mortality estimates. METHODS: To determine how mortality estimates are affected by the data used to generate model outputs, we compared the studies used by The Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) and Maternal and Child Epidemiology Estimation (MCEE) modelling groups to generate enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) and Shigella-associated mortality estimates for 2016. Guided by an expert WHO Working Group, we applied a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to evaluate the quality of studies used by both modelling groups. RESULTS: IHME and MCEE used different sets of ETEC and Shigella studies in their models and the majority of studies were high quality. The distribution of the NOS scores was similar between the two modelling groups. We observed an overrepresentation of studies from some countries in SEAR, AFR and WPR compared to other WHO regions. CONCLUSION: We identified key differences in study inclusion and exclusion criteria used by IHME and MCEE and discuss their impact on datasets used to generate diarrhoea-associated mortality estimates. Based on these observations, we provide a set of recommendations for future estimates of mortality associated with enteric diseases.
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 | 0.298 | 0.602 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.011 |
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".