Estimating vaccine coverage in conflict settings using geospatial methods: a case study in Borno state, Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable estimates of subnational vaccination coverage are critical to track progress towards global immunisation targets and ensure equitable health outcomes for all children. However, conflict can limit the reliability of coverage estimates from traditional household-based surveys due to an inability to sample in unsafe and insecure areas and increased uncertainty in underlying population estimates. In these situations, model-based geostatistical (MBG) approaches offer alternative coverage estimates for administrative units affected by conflict. We estimated first- and third-dose diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine coverage in Borno state, Nigeria, using a spatiotemporal MBG modelling approach, then compared these to estimates from recent conflict-affected, household-based surveys. We compared sampling cluster locations from recent household-based surveys to geolocated data on conflict locations and modelled spatial coverage estimates, while also investigating the importance of reliable population estimates when assessing coverage in conflict settings. These results demonstrate that geospatially-modelled coverage estimates can be a valuable additional tool to understand coverage in locations where conflict prevents representative sampling.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".