Microsimulation models on child and adolescent health: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Microsimulation models are computer-based models, which can be employed to simulate the behaviour of microagents, such as children and adolescents, to understand the potential behavioural and economic effects of health interventions or policies. As a result, these models can be useful tools to help guide decision-making. A comprehensive review of the literature on child and adolescent microsimulation models has yet to be undertaken. Moreover, an evaluation of the quality of the existing models can be useful to understand their strengths and limitations and thus inform the development of future models. The aim of this scoping review will be to retrieve, synthesise and critically appraise the literature on existing microsimulation models focused on child and adolescent health. Methods and analysis We will conduct a scoping review using established methods. We will search PubMed (until 23 September 2024), Embase (until 18 September 2024), CINAHL (until 9 September 2024), PsyclNFO (11 September 2024), EconLit (until 9 September 2024) and Scopus (until 10 September 2024), with an update closer to the time of manuscript submission. We will also undertake snowballing, Google searches and searches on specific journal (eg, International Journal of Microsimulation ) and websites (eg, https://www.microsimulation.ac.uk/ ) to complement database searches. We will extract relevant data on all studies retrieved and use the Quality Assessment Reporting for Microsimulation Models checklist to assess the reporting quality of each model. We will use a narrative synthesis with summary tables to describe our findings. Findings will be synthesised by type of health condition, if/where possible. Ethics and dissemination Given that primary data will not be collected in this study, research ethics approval is not required. We will present our findings at relevant conferences and publish our results in an appropriate peer-reviewed academic journal. In addition, we will use this information to guide the development of a microsimulation model on child and adolescent health for use in the Swedish context. Registration details https://osf.io/a8txn/
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 | 0.119 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.013 |
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".