MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399428687 · doi:10.1016/j.lana.2024.100806

Incorporating social determinants of health into transmission modeling of COVID-19 vaccine in the US: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4399428687 on OpenAlexaff
Khanh Ngoc Cong Duong, Danielle Nguyen, Warittakorn Kategeaw, Xi Liang, Win Khaing, Lindsay Visnovsky, Sajesh K. Veettil, Mary McFarland, Richard E. Nelson, Barbara E Jones, Andrew T. Pavia, Emma Coates, Karim Khader, Jay Love, George G. Vega Yon, Yue Zhang, Tina Willson, Egenia Dorsan, Damon Toth, Makoto M Jones, Matthew H Samore

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Regional Health - Americas · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Transmission (telecommunications)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakVirologyEnvironmental healthMedicineComputer scienceTelecommunicationsOutbreakDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During COVID-19 in the US, social determinants of health (SDH) have driven health disparities. However, the use of SDH in COVID-19 vaccine modeling is unclear. This review aimed to summarize the current landscape of incorporating SDH into COVID-19 vaccine transmission modeling in the US. Medline and Embase were searched up to October 2022. We included studies that used transmission modeling to assess the effects of COVID-19 vaccine strategies in the US. Studies' characteristics, factors incorporated into models, and approaches to incorporate these factors were extracted. Ninety-two studies were included. Of these, 11 studies incorporated SDH factors (alone or combined with demographic factors). Various sets of SDH factors were integrated, with occupation being the most common (8 studies), followed by geographical location (5 studies). The results show that few studies incorporate SDHs into their models, highlighting the need for research on SDH impact and approaches to incorporating SDH into modeling. Funding: This research was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.009
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.691
GPT teacher head0.613
Teacher spread0.077 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Regional Health - AmericasSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207