Evaluation of Health Interview Surveys and Health Examination Surveys in the European Union
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
Background: The project ‘Health surveys in the EU: HIS and HIS/HES evaluations and models’ aims to assess the coverage of specific health and health-related areas in national and international surveys by reviewing and evaluating surveys, their methods and comparability, and by recommending appropriate survey designs and methods. Methods: As basis for the evaluation, the project developed a health survey database. At present, Health Interview Surveys (HIS) and Health Examination Surveys (HES) from 18 Western European countries as well as from Canada, Australia and the USA are included. Results: National HISs have been carried out regularly in almost all Western European countries. The HIS may consist of short health sections or modules within multi-purpose surveys or lengthy health interviews with several questionnaires. National HESs with a comprehensive focus have been conducted at regular or irregular intervals in five countries. The HES may comprise an interview and a few measurements or a comprehensive health examination. Sampling frames, fieldwork, quality control procedures and response rates vary greatly. Differences between measurement instruments used, in the wording of questions and in examination protocols reduce the comparability of many findings. Conclusion: The Internet based HIS/HES database allows for a quick reference and comparison of methods and instruments used in national health surveys. It illustrates the need for improving comparability. Collaboration and co-ordination is needed to promote comprehensive health monitoring supporting the development of national and European-level health policy.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.964 | 0.002 |
| 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