Modelling outbreak response impact in human vaccine-preventable diseases: A systematic review of differences in practices between collaboration types before COVID-19
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: Outbreak response modelling often involves collaboration among academics, and experts from governmental and non-governmental organizations. We conducted a systematic review of modelling studies on human vaccine-preventable disease (VPD) outbreaks to identify patterns in modelling practices between two collaboration types. We complemented this with a mini comparison of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), a veterinary disease that is controllable by vaccination. METHODS: We searched three databases for modelling studies that assessed the impact of an outbreak response. We extracted data on author affiliation type (academic institution, governmental, and non-governmental organizations), location studied, and whether at least one author was affiliated to the studied location. We also extracted the outcomes and interventions studied, and model characteristics. Included studies were grouped into two collaboration types: purely academic (papers with only academic affiliations), and mixed (all other combinations) to help investigate differences in modelling patterns between collaboration types in the human disease literature and overall differences with FMD collaboration practices. RESULTS: Human VPDs formed 227 of 252 included studies. Purely academic collaborations dominated the human disease studies (56%). Notably, mixed collaborations increased in the last seven years (2013-2019). Most studies had an author affiliated to an institution in the country studied (75.2%) but this was more likely among the mixed collaborations. Contrasted to the human VPDs, mixed collaborations dominated the FMD literature (56%). Furthermore, FMD studies more often had an author with an affiliation to the country studied (92%) and used complex model design, including stochasticity, and model parametrization and validation. CONCLUSION: The increase in mixed collaboration studies over the past seven years could suggest an increase in the uptake of modelling for outbreak response decision-making. We encourage more mixed collaborations between academic and non-academic institutions and the involvement of locally affiliated authors to help ensure that the studies suit local contexts.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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