Leveraging big data for improving the estimation of close to reality travel time to obstetric emergency services in urban low- and middle-income settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maternal and perinatal mortality remain huge challenges globally, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where >98% of these deaths occur. Emergency obstetric care (EmOC) provided by skilled health personnel is an evidence-based package of interventions effective in reducing these deaths associated with pregnancy and childbirth. Until recently, pregnant women residing in urban areas have been considered to have good access to care, including EmOC. However, emerging evidence shows that due to rapid urbanization, this so called “urban advantage” is shrinking and in some LMIC settings, it is almost non-existent. This poses a complex challenge for structuring an effective health service delivery system, which tend to have poor spatial planning especially in LMIC settings. To optimize access to EmOC and ultimately reduce preventable maternal deaths within the context of urbanization, it is imperative to accurately locate areas and population groups that are geographically marginalized. Underpinning such assessments is accurately estimating travel time to health facilities that provide EmOC. In this perspective, we discuss strengths and weaknesses of approaches commonly used to estimate travel times to EmOC in LMICs, broadly grouped as reported and modeled approaches, while contextualizing our discussion in urban areas. We then introduce the novel OnTIME project, which seeks to address some of the key limitations in these commonly used approaches by leveraging big data. The perspective concludes with a discussion on anticipated outcomes and potential policy applications of the OnTIME project.
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 | 0.011 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".