Health Equity Assessment Toolkit (HEAT and HEAT Plus): exploring inequalities in the COVID-19 pandemic era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Sustainable Development Goals have helped to focus attention on the importance of reducing inequality and 'leaving no one behind'. Monitoring health inequalities is essential for providing evidence to inform policies, programmes and practices that can close existing gaps and achieve health equity. The Health Equity Assessment Toolkit (HEAT and HEAT Plus) software was developed by the World Health Organization to facilitate the assessment of within-country health inequalities. RESULTS: HEAT contains a built-in database of disaggregated health data, while HEAT Plus allows users to upload and analyze inequalities using their own datasets. Version 4.0 of the software incorporated enhancements to the toolkit's capacity for equity assessments. This includes a multilingual interface, interactive and downloadable visualizations, flexibility to analyze inequalities using any dataset of disaggregated data, and the built-in calculation of 19 summary measures of inequality. This paper outlines the improved features and functionalities of the HEAT and HEAT Plus software since their original release, highlighted through an example of how the toolkit can be used to assess inequalities in the COVID-19 pandemic era. CONCLUSIONS: The features of the HEAT and HEAT Plus software make it a valuable tool for analyzing and reporting inequalities related to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as its indirect impacts on inequalities in other health and non-health areas, providing evidence to inform equity-oriented interventions and strategies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.003 |
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".