MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403758029 · doi:10.1101/2024.10.24.24315872

The global burden of chikungunya virus and the potential benefit of vaccines

2024· preprint· en· W4403758029 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel Ribeiro dos Santos, Fariha Jawed, Christinah Mukandavire, Arminder Deol, Danny Scarponi, Leonard E. G. Mboera, Eric Seruyange, Mathieu J. P. Poirier, Samuel Bosomprah, A. O. Udeze, Koussay Dellagi, Nathanaël Hozé, Jaffu Chilongola, Gheyath K. Nasrallah, Elmar Saathof, Simon Cauchemez, Henrik Salje

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChikungunyaVirologyVirusMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The first chikungunya virus (CHIKV) vaccine has now been licensed, however, its potential to reduce disease burden remains unknown due to a poor knowledge of the underlying global burden. We use data from seroprevalence studies, observed cases and mosquito distributions to quantify the underlying burden in 190 countries and territories, and explore the potential impact of the vaccine. We estimate that 104 countries have experienced transmission, covering 2.8 billion individuals and that in epidemic settings, the mean duration between outbreaks is 6.2 years, with 8.4% of the susceptible population infected per outbreak. Globally there are 33.7 million annual infections, driven by countries in Southeast Asia, Africa and the Americas. Assuming a vaccine efficacy against disease of 70% a protection against infection of 40%, vaccinating 50% of individuals over 12 years old in places and times where the virus circulates would avert 3,718 infections, 2.8 deaths and 158 DALYs per 100,000 doses used. These findings highlight the global burden and the significant potential of the vaccine.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicMosquito-borne diseases and control→French-language works237,207→