Research gaps and priorities for quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic highlighted the need for more rapid and routine application of modeling approaches such as quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) for protecting public health. QMRA is a transdisciplinary science dedicated to understanding, predicting, and mitigating infectious disease risks. To better equip QMRA researchers to inform policy and public health management, an Advances in Research for QMRA workshop was held to synthesize a path forward for QMRA research. We summarize insights from 41 QMRA researchers and experts to clarify the role of QMRA in risk analysis by (1) identifying key research needs, (2) highlighting emerging applications of QMRA; and (3) describing data needs and key scientific efforts to improve the science of QMRA. Key identified research priorities included using molecular tools in QMRA, advancing dose-response methodology, addressing needed exposure assessments, harmonizing environmental monitoring for QMRA, unifying a divide between disease transmission and QMRA models, calibrating and/or validating QMRA models, modeling co-exposures and mixtures, and standardizing practices for incorporating variability and uncertainty throughout the source-to-outcome continuum. Cross-cutting needs identified were to: develop a community of research and practice, integrate QMRA with other scientific approaches, increase QMRA translation and impacts, build communication strategies, and encourage sustainable funding mechanisms. Ultimately, a vision for advancing the science of QMRA is outlined for informing national to global health assessments, controls, and policies.
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 | 0.126 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".