MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3216377036 · doi:10.2196/25752

Development of a Quality Assurance Score for the Nigeria AIDS Indicator and Impact Survey (NAIIS) Database: Validation Study

2021· article· en· W3216377036 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hamisu M. Salihu, Zenab I. Yusuf, Deepa Dongarwar, Sani Aliyu, Rafeek A. Yusuf, Muktar H. Aliyu, Gambo Aliyu

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDatabaseDelphiThe InternetDelphi methodComputer scienceMeasure (data warehouse)Quality assuranceEngineeringOperations managementWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 2018, Nigeria implemented the world's largest HIV survey, the Nigeria AIDS Indicator and Impact Survey (NAIIS), with the overarching goal of obtaining more reliable metrics regarding the national scope of HIV epidemic control in Nigeria. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) describe the processes involved in the development of a new database evaluation tool (Database Quality Assurance Score [dQAS]) and (2) assess the application of the dQAS in the evaluation and validation of the NAIIS database. METHODS: The dQAS tool was created using an online, electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) methodology with the assistance of expert review panelists. Thematic categories were developed to form superordinate categories that grouped themes together. Subordinate categories were then created that decomposed themes for more specificity. A validation score using dQAS was employed to assess the technical performance of the NAIIS database. RESULTS: The finalized dQAS tool was composed of 34 items, with a total score of 81. The tool had 2 sections: validation item section, which contains 5 subsections, and quality assessment score section, with a score of "1" for "Yes" to indicate that the performance measure item was present and "0" for "No" to indicate that the measure was absent. There were also additional scaling scores ranging from "0" to a maximum of "4" depending on the measure. The NAIIS database achieved 78 out of the maximum total score of 81, yielding an overall technical performance score of 96.3%, which placed it in the highest category denoted as "Exceptional." CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the feasibility of remote internet-based collaboration for the development of dQAS-a tool to assess the validity of a locally created database infrastructure for a resource-limited setting. Using dQAS, the NAIIS database was found to be valid, reliable, and a valuable source of data for future population-based, HIV-related studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.160
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.198
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1600.198
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→