The Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease Sentinel Surveillance System in South Korea: Retrospective Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: South Korea has implemented a hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) surveillance system since 2009 to monitor incidence trends and identify disease burden. This nationwide surveillance involves a network of approximately 100 pediatric clinics that report all probable and confirmed HFMD cases. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, infectious disease surveillance systems must be evaluated to ensure the effective use of limited public health resources. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the HFMD sentinel surveillance system in South Korea from 2017 to 2022, focusing on the transition period after the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the HFMD sentinel surveillance system from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency using systematic guidelines for public health surveillance system evaluation developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We assessed the system's overall performance in 5 main factors: timeliness, stability, completeness, sensitivity, and representativeness (ie, the age and geographic distribution of sentinels). We rated these factors as weak, moderate, or good. Results: Our study showed that the completeness, sensitivity, and age representativeness of the HFMD surveillance performance were temporarily reduced to moderate levels from 2020 to 2021 and recovered in 2022, while the timeliness and geographic representativeness were maintained at a good level throughout the study period. The stability of the surveillance was moderate from 2017 to 2021 and weak in 2022. Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate the HFMD surveillance system after the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. We identified a temporarily reduced level of performance (ie, completeness, sensitivity, and age-specific representativeness) during the acute phase of the pandemic and good performance in 2022. Surveillance system evaluation and maintenance during public health emergencies will provide robust and reliable data to support public health policy development. Regular staff training programs and reducing staff turnover will improve HFMD surveillance system stability.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".