Smart Discharges Uganda Under 5: Phase I clinical data of children 6-60 months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This data is a subset of the Smart Discharges Uganda Under 5 years parent study and is specific to the Phase I observational cohort of children aged 6-60m. Objective(s): Used as part of the Smart Discharge prediction modelling for adverse outcomes such as post-discharge death and readmission. Data Description: All data were collected at the point of care using encrypted study tablets and these data were then uploaded to a Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database hosted at the BC Children’s Hospital Research Institute (Vancouver, Canada). At admission, trained study nurses systematically collected data on clinical, social and demographic variables. Following discharge, field officers contacted caregivers at 2 and 4 months by phone, and in-person at 6 months, to determine vital status, post-discharge health-seeking, and readmission details. Verbal autopsies were conducted for children who had died following discharge. . Data Processing: Created z-scores for anthropometry variables using height and weight according to WHO cutoff. Distance to hospital was calculated using latitude and longitude. Extra symptom and diagnosis categories were created based on text field in these two variables. BCS score was created by summing all individual components. Limitations: There are missing dates and the admission, discharge, and readmission dates are not in order. Ethics Declaration: This study was approved by the Mbarara University of Science and Technology Research Ethics Committee (No. 15/10-16), the Uganda National Institute of Science and Technology (HS 2207), and the University of British Columbia / Children & Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia Research Ethics Board (H16-02679). This manuscript adheres to the guidelines for STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE).
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".