MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414012735 · doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2025.102965

Methods and tools for rapid risk assessments for acute public health emergencies

2025· review· en· W4414012735 on OpenAlexaff
Naif Khalaf Alharbi, Lubna Alariqi, Jaś Mantero, Leena Zeyad, Kyeng Mercy, Nijuan Xiang, Sharon Calvin, Karl Ekdahl, Anas Khan, Helen Clare Roberts, Mark Salter, Cat McGillycuddy, Christopher K. Brown, Eric Marble, Emilie Peron, Aura Corpuz, Fatma Alattar, Emad Lafi Almohammadi, Khalid Al-Harthy, M. Al-Hajri, Sondos Alqabandi, Sami Almudarra, Pasi Penttinen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Infection and Public Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsPublic healthRisk assessmentMedicineMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthEnvironmental planningRisk analysis (engineering)Intensive care medicineEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceComputer securityPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public Health Emergencies can arise from chemical, biological, and radio-nuclear (CBRN) and natural or man-made environmental hazards. These events can threaten human health, especially with certain biological hazards. Therefore, a significant role of public health agencies is to early-detect, promptly assess, evaluate, and communicate the risk to decision-makers for preventative or responsive actions. Although rapid risk assessment (RRA) for acute public health events has been in practice for decades, there is still potential to standardize and improve its process and outputs by harnessing new opportunities, especially with digitalization and cross-sector collaboration. In this article, we present an overview of the RRA processes, methods, and tools described by ten public health agencies and groups at an international workshop on 6-7 June 2023. This article also presents challenges, opportunities, and recommendations for enhancing the RRA efficiency and increasing knowledge about RRA processes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.445
GPT teacher head0.651
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Infection and Public HealthSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207