AI-based epidemic and pandemic early warning systems: A systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Timely detection of disease outbreaks is critical in public health. Artificial Intelligence (AI) can identify patterns in data that signal the onset of epidemics and pandemics. This scoping review examines the effectiveness of AI in epidemic and pandemic early warning systems (EWS). Objective: To assess the capability of AI-based systems in predicting epidemics and pandemics and to identify challenges and strategies for improvement. Methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted. The review included studies from the last 5 years, focusing on AI and machine learning applications in EWS. After screening 1087 articles, 33 were selected for thematic analysis. Results: The review found that AI-based EWS have been effectively implemented in various contexts, using a range of algorithms. Key challenges identified include data quality, model explainability, bias, data volume, velocity, variety, availability, and granularity. Strategies for mitigating AI bias and improving system adaptability were also discussed. Conclusion: AI has shown promise in enhancing the speed and accuracy of epidemic detection. However, challenges related to data quality, bias, and model transparency need to be addressed to improve the reliability and generalizability of AI-based EWS. Continuous monitoring and improvement, as well as incorporating social and environmental data, are essential for future development.
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 | 0.021 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".