Dear all,
we're currently building a template for Zika-related articles (cf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Zika ), and I could imagine
some of these - e.g. those on the earlier Zika outbreaks - may be
useful for training the models.
Cheers,
Daniel
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Priedhorsky, Reid <reidpr(a)lanl.gov> wrote:
> Insufficient data in epidemiological sources. Basically, we need fairly
> decent time series incidence data over a few years in order to train the
> models; this isn’t available for Zika, just case reports here and there.
>
> The expert on our team is Ashlynn Daughton: “[T]here’s been a small amount
> of surveillance of Zika
> (http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/ET/V19N02/V19N02.pdf).
> French polynesia and other islands had an outbreak in 2013 and it sounds
> like there are *some* reports (pg. 50). There’s also sporadic mentions of
> imported Zika from travelers from Africa or Asia (e.g. See pg 54). But there
> hasn’t been anything as systematic, or comprehensive as there is now.”
>
> HTH,
> Reid
>
> On Feb 19, 2016, at 10:29 AM, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Reid. When you say there's insufficient data history, do you mean
> in other sources? Zika was discovered in 1947 and the wiki page for it was
> built in 2009. We have high quality geolocated data since May 2015.
>
> I'm still doing research (I admit the distractions at the foundation have
> gotten in the way, I apologize for that). I hope to get back to it with
> renewed force this weekend.
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Priedhorsky, Reid <reidpr(a)lanl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> We do have more work in progress to extend the 2014 paper, in particular
>> to mosquito-borne diseases in a Spanish-speaking country, though not Zika
>> because there is insufficient data history.
>>
>> I appreciate the pointer. Are there any specific questions folks would
>> like me to address in this thread?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Reid
>> _______________________________________________
>> Analytics mailing list
>> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
Thanks, Reid. When you say there's insufficient data history, do you mean
in other sources? Zika was discovered in 1947 and the wiki page for it was
built in 2009. We have high quality geolocated data since May 2015.
I'm still doing research (I admit the distractions at the foundation have
gotten in the way, I apologize for that). I hope to get back to it with
renewed force this weekend.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Priedhorsky, Reid <reidpr(a)lanl.gov> wrote:
> We do have more work in progress to extend the 2014 paper, in particular
> to mosquito-borne diseases in a Spanish-speaking country, though not Zika
> because there is insufficient data history.
>
> I appreciate the pointer. Are there any specific questions folks would
> like me to address in this thread?
>
> Thanks,
> Reid
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
Fellow Wikipedians
We have been working hard in the Arabic Wikipedia to establish a twin
WikiProject Medicine that would address local medical issues, in
addition to participating in global translation efforts.
One of the questions I had was the criteria currently followed to
evaluate the importance of medical articles on the English Wikipedia.
They seem a little bit vague and more difficult to follow when
compared to the quality scale.
Is there any suggested third-party reference that provides some kind
of a guide or a list of important medical subjects?
Best,
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hey Dan,
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>> So, I felt personally compelled in the case of Zika, and the confusing
>> coverage it has seen, to offer to personally help.
>
>
> Which aspect of the coverage are you referring to as confusing?
>
Well, so the first reports were that 3500 cases of microcephaly were linked
to Zika in Brazil, since October. If you do the math, with Brazil's birth
rate of 300,000 per year, 3500 for three months is incredibly high. The
number went up to 4400 before it was discredited and the latest I read is
that it's down to 404 [1] and there are claims of over-inflation. That
same article talks about serious doubts that Zika even has anything to do
with microcephaly. In reading around some more about the subject, it seems
like a multi-variate analysis gone wrong.
>
>
I can run queries, test hypotheses, and help publish data that could back
>> up articles. Privacy of our editors is of course still obviously
>> protected, but that's easier to do in a specific case with human review
>> than in the general case.
>>
>>
>
> I'm up for brainstorming about what we can do and helping. Please keep
> me in the loop. In general, given that a big chunk of our traffic comes
> from Google at the moment, it would be great to work with the researchers
> in Google involved in Google's health related initiatives to produce
> complementary knowledge to what Google can already tell about Zika (for
> example, this
> <https://www.google.com/trends/story/US_cu_p-RCiVIBAAC37M_en>). I'll
> reach out to the few people I know to get some more information.
> Depending on what complementary knowledge we want to produce, working with
> WikiProject Medicine can be helpful, too.
>
Cool, yeah, I'm nowhere close to knowledgeable on this, I can data-dog
though :)
[1] www.cbc.ca/news/health/microcephaly-brazil-zika-reality-1.3442580
We have talked in the past about releasing granular geocoded pageview data
so that we may track the spread of diseases. The efforts of the Los Alamos
National Lab folks to do this in a privacy sensitive way are on-going, and
we have our own efforts as well, but completely solving this problem in the
general case is known to be very hard.
So, I felt personally compelled in the case of Zika, and the confusing
coverage it has seen, to offer to personally help. I can run queries, test
hypotheses, and help publish data that could back up articles. Privacy of
our editors is of course still obviously protected, but that's easier to do
in a specific case with human review than in the general case.
I offer as much of my volunteer time as will get the job done, plus any of
my official time that my team-mates deem appropriate (they're pretty
awesome, so you probably have me double full time if you need me).
I'm trying to find a script that makes it easy to insert assessment
tags into (medical) articles. The one I have found was Kephir's
rater[0], but it's more general-purpose and multi-functional in a way
that makes it difficult to localize into the Arabic Wikipedia.
Any other suggested script?
Best regards,
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kephir/gadgets/rater