Identifying non-traditional electronic datasets for population-level surveillance and prevention of cardiometabolic diseases: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cardiometabolic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, obesity and diabetes, are leading causes of death and disability worldwide. Modern advances in population-level disease surveillance are necessary and may inform novel opportunities for precision public health approaches to disease prevention. Electronic data sources, such as social media and consumer rewards points systems, have expanded dramatically in recent decades. These non-traditional datasets may enhance traditional clinical and public health datasets and inform cardiometabolic disease surveillance and population health interventions. However, the scope of non-traditional electronic datasets and their use for cardiometabolic disease surveillance and population health interventions has not been previously reviewed. The primary objective of this review is to describe the scope of non-traditional electronic datasets, and how they are being used for cardiometabolic disease surveillance and to inform interventions. The secondary objective is to describe the methods, such as machine learning and natural language processing, that have been applied to leverage these datasets. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review following recommended methodology. Search terms will be based on the three central concepts of non-traditional electronic datasets, cardiometabolic diseases and population health. We will search EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library peer-reviewed databases and will also conduct a grey literature search. Articles published from 2000 to present will be independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion at abstract and full-text stages, and conflicts will be resolved by a separate reviewer. We will report this data as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required for this protocol and scoping review, as data will be used only from published studies with appropriate ethics approval. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication.
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 | 0.133 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.019 |
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".