Assessing the reporting of Dengue, Chikungunya and Zika to the National Surveillance System in Colombia from 2014–2017: A Capture-recapture analysis accounting for misclassification of arboviral diagnostics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Chikungunya, dengue, and Zika are three different arboviruses which have similar symptoms and are a major public health issue in Colombia. Despite the mandatory reporting of these arboviruses to the National Surveillance System in Colombia (SIVIGILA), it has been reported that the system captures less than 10% of diagnosed cases in some cities. Methodology/Principal findings To assess the scope and degree of arboviruses reporting in Colombia between 2014–2017, we conducted an observational study of surveillance data using the capture-recapture approach in three Colombian cities. Using healthcare facility registries (capture data) and surveillance-notified cases (recapture data), we estimated the degree of reporting by clinical diagnosis. We fit robust Poisson regressions to identify predictors of reporting and estimated the predicted probability of reporting by disease and year. To account for the potential misclassification of the clinical diagnosis, we used the simulation extrapolation for misclassification (MC-SIMEX) method. A total of 266,549 registries were examined. Overall arboviruses' reporting ranged from 5.3% to 14.7% and varied in magnitude according to age and year of diagnosis. Dengue was the most notified disease (21–70%) followed by Zika (6–45%). The highest reporting rate was seen in 2016, an epidemic year. The MC-SIMEX corrected rates indicated underestimation of the reporting due to the potential misclassification bias. Conclusions These findings reflect challenges on arboviruses' reporting, and therefore, potential challenges on the estimation of arboviral burden in Colombia and other endemic settings with similar surveillance systems.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".