MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392108568 · doi:10.1002/cesm.12044

Methods for conducting a living evidence profile on mpox: An evidence map of the literature

2024· article· en· W4392108568 on OpenAlexaff
Kusala Pussegoda, Tricia Corrin, Austyn Baumeister, Dima Ayache, Lisa Waddell

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCartographyComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In May of 2022, several cases of mpox were identified in multiple nonendemic countries and on July 23, 2022 the World Health Organization declared mpox a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. During the first six months of the outbreak there was an urgent need to have up-to-date synthesized evidence on mpox to inform public health decision-making. At this point, evidence is changing too quickly for traditional evidence synthesis methods, as systematic reviews were out-of-date before publication. This paper describes the framework developed to manage and maintain a living evidence profile (LEP) to systematically identify, classify and synthesize evidence on a broad range of mpox topics at a rapid pace as the outbreak unfolded. Methods: The LEP framework was based on principles of evidence synthesis, risk assessment, priority epidemiological parameters for infectious disease modeling and consultation with experts. The framework consisted of a systematic search conducted twice weekly; study selection; categorization into pre-determined foci and data extraction; integration and synthesis of evidence; internal peer-review and dissemination to stakeholders. Results: Between April 14 and December 15, 2022, 2287 citations were identified, 687 were primary research studies or surveillance reports on the 2022 mpox outbreak and 496 were included in the final LEP. Each study was mapped to one of 32 foci and evidence was narratively synthesized. From June to December 2022, 23 LEPs were produced (approximately weekly) along with a searchable database of extracted data of the mpox literature. They were disseminated globally to public health researchers and decision-makers to inform public health response efforts. Conclusions: The LEP framework is applicable to other public health emergencies when a rapid synthesis cycle is required because the evidence is evolving quickly. This efficient methodology for creating up-to-date summaries of the current evidence during the first few months of an outbreak or emergency supports public health decision-making and response activities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.261
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.384
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2610.384
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.013
Bibliometrics0.1000.061
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0200.021
Open science0.0080.020
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Evidence Synthesis and MethodsSame topicPoxvirus research and outbreaksFrench-language works237,207