Optimising Clinical Epidemiology in Disease Outbreaks: Analysis of ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Case Report Form Utilisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standardised forms for capturing clinical data promote consistency in data collection and analysis across study sites, enabling faster, higher-quality evidence generation. ISARIC and the World Health Organization have developed case report forms (CRFs) for the clinical characterisation of several infectious disease outbreaks. To improve the design and quality of future forms, we analysed the inclusion and completion rates of the 243 fields on the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 CRF. Data from 42 diverse collaborations, covering 1,886 hospitals and 950,064 patients were analysed. A mean of 129.6 fields (53%) were included in the adapted CRFs implemented across the sites. Consistent patterns of field inclusion and completion aligned with globally recognised research priorities in outbreaks of novel infectious diseases. Outcome status was the most highly included (95.2%) and completed (89.8%) field, followed by admission demographics (79.1% and 91.6%), comorbidities (77.9% and 79.0%), signs & symptoms (68.9% and 78.4%) and vitals (70.3% and 69.1%). Mean field completion was higher in severe patients (70.2%) than in all patients (61.6%). The results indicate that clinical characterisation CRFs can be streamlined to reduce data collection time, including the modularisation of CRFs to offer a choice of data volume collection and the separation of critical care interventions. This data-driven approach to designing CRFs enhances the efficiency of data collection to inform patient care and public health response.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".