Methods and instruments used in the literature to quantitatively analyze the acceptability of pharmaceutical interventions for the prevention and treatment of neglected tropical diseases: a systematic review v1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acceptability is one of the four core components of the right to health and one of the seven factors that are considered in formulating recommendations as part of the World Health Organization guidelines, yet it remains challenging to define and measure.Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are a group of 21 diseases that affect people living in vulnerable circumstances, and it is estimated that over 1.6 billion people worldwide require either preventive or curative interventions for at least one NTD. Quantitatively measuring a subjective attribute, such as the acceptability of pharmaceutical interventions for the prevention and treatment of NTDs, presents a fundamental challenge. In this systematic review, We will comprehensively outline various methodologies employed to measure and analyze acceptability of pharmaceutical interventions across different studies and NTDs.
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 | 0.074 | 0.226 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.043 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".