Young Infants Clinical Signs Study 8-sign Algorithm for Identification of Sick Infants Adapted for Routine Home Visits: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of its Measurement Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. The 8-sign algorithm adapted from the Young Infants Clinical Signs Study (YICSS) is widely used to identify sick infants during home visits (YICSS-home algorithm). We aimed to critically appraise the development and evidence of measurement properties, including sensibility, reliability, and validity, of the YICSS-home algorithm. Methods. Relevant studies were identified through a systematic literature search. Results. The YICSS-home algorithm has good sensibility. The algorithm demonstrated at least moderate inter-rater reliability and sensitivity ranging from 69% to 80%. However, the algorithm was developed among sick infants brought for care to a health facility and not initially developed for use by community health workers (CHWs) during home visits. Some important risk factors were omitted at item generation. Inter-CHW reliability and construct validity have not been estimated. Conclusion. Future research should build on the strengths of the YICSS-home algorithm and address its limitations to develop a new algorithm with improved predictive accuracy.
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 | 0.021 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".