Accelerating Progress Towards the 2030 Neglected Tropical Diseases Targets: How Can Quantitative Modeling Support Programmatic Decisions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, considerable progress has been made in the control, elimination, and eradication of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Despite these advances, most NTD programs have recently experienced important setbacks; for example, NTD interventions were some of the most frequently and severely impacted by service disruptions due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Mathematical modeling can help inform selection of interventions to meet the targets set out in the NTD road map 2021-2030, and such studies should prioritize questions that are relevant for decision-makers, especially those designing, implementing, and evaluating national and subnational programs. In September 2022, the World Health Organization hosted a stakeholder meeting to identify such priority modeling questions across a range of NTDs and to consider how modeling could inform local decision making. Here, we summarize the outputs of the meeting, highlight common themes in the questions being asked, and discuss how quantitative modeling can support programmatic decisions that may accelerate progress towards the 2030 targets.
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 | 0.025 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".