MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1883385347 · doi:10.1186/s12887-015-0450-4

Diagnostic accuracy of WHO verbal autopsy tool for ascertaining causes of neonatal deaths in the urban setting of Pakistan: a hospital-based prospective study

2015· article· en· W1883385347 on OpenAlexaff
Sajid Soofi, Shabina Ariff, Ubaidullah Khan, Ali Turab, Gul Nawaz Khan, Atif Habib, Kamran Sadiq, Zamir Suhag, Zaid Bhatti, Imran Ahmed, Rajiv Bhal, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pediatrics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsVerbal autopsyMedicineAutopsyCause of deathPediatricsAsphyxiaDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Globally, clinical certification of the cause of neonatal death is not commonly available in developing countries. Under such circumstances it is imperative to use available WHO verbal autopsy tool to ascertain causes of death for strategic health planning in countries where resources are limited and the burden of neonatal death is high. The study explores the diagnostic accuracy of WHO revised verbal autopsy tool for ascertaining the causes of neonatal deaths against reference standard diagnosis obtained from standardized clinical and supportive hospital data. METHODS: All neonatal deaths were recruited between August 2006 -February 2008 from two tertiary teaching hospitals in Province Sindh, Pakistan. The reference standard cause of death was established by two senior pediatricians within 2 days of occurrence of death using the International Cause of Death coding system. For verbal autopsy, trained female community health worker interviewed mother or care taker of the deceased within 2-6 weeks of death using a modified WHO verbal autopsy tool. Cause of death was assigned by 2 trained pediatricians. The performance was assessed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Out of 626 neonatal deaths, cause-specific mortality fractions for neonatal deaths were almost similar in both verbal autopsy and reference standard diagnosis. Sensitivity of verbal autopsy was more than 93% for diagnosing prematurity and 83.5% for birth asphyxia. However the verbal autopsy didn't have acceptable accuracy for diagnosing the congenital malformation 57%. The specificity for all five major causes of neonatal deaths was greater than 90%. CONCLUSION: The WHO revised verbal autopsy tool had reasonable validity in determining causes of neonatal deaths. The tool can be used in resource limited community-based settings where neonatal mortality rate is high and death certificates from hospitals are not available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations105
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PediatricsSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207