Influenza surveillance systems using traditional and alternative sources of data: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While the World Health Organization's recommendation of syndromic sentinel surveillance for influenza is an efficient method to collect high-quality data, limitations exist. Aligned with the Research Recommendation 1.1.2 of the WHO Public Health Research Agenda for Influenza-to identify reliable complementary influenza surveillance systems which provide real-time estimates of influenza activity-we performed a scoping review to map the extent and nature of published literature on the use of non-traditional sources of syndromic surveillance data for influenza. METHODS: We searched three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) for articles in English, French, and Spanish, published between January 1 2007 and January 28 2022. Studies were included if they directly compared at least one non-traditional with a traditional influenza surveillance system in terms of correlation in activity or timeliness. FINDINGS: We retrieved 823 articles of which 57 were included for analysis. Fifteen articles considered electronic health records (EHR), 11 participatory surveillance, 10 online searches and webpage traffic, seven Twitter, five absenteeism, four telephone health lines, three medication sales, two media reporting, and five looked at other miscellaneous sources of data. Several articles considered more than one non-traditional surveillance method. CONCLUSION: We identified eight categories and a miscellaneous group of non-traditional influenza surveillance systems with varying levels of evidence on timeliness and correlation to traditional surveillance systems. Analyses of EHR and participatory surveillance systems appeared to have the most agreement on timeliness and correlation to traditional systems. Studies suggested non-traditional surveillance systems as complements rather than replacements to traditional systems.
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 | 0.054 | 0.210 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".