MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034175246 · doi:10.1258/cr.2008.080042

Why Children Die: the report of a pilot confidential enquiry into child death by CEMACH (Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health)

2008· article· en· W2034175246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gale Pearson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Risk · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidentialityQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicineEthnic groupMental healthLimitingHealth careFamily medicinePsychiatryHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH) has published a report entitled ‘Why Children Die: A Pilot Study’. The report contains the results of a large confidential enquiry into child death across one-third of England, all of Wales and all of Northern Ireland in 2006. The report contains a quantitative analysis of 957 deaths which shows some regional and ethnic variation in death rates. Also despite high rates of pre-existent and perhaps life-limiting illness/disability, most children die in hospital, with only small numbers in hospices. Child suicide rates were higher than expected and only one-quarter of these cases were known to mental health services. The report also contains a qualitative analysis of a sample of cases ( n = 126) which were subjected review by multidisciplinary panels. Avoidable factors were found in 26% and potentially avoidable in a further 43%. A recurring avoidable factor in relation to healthcare was ‘failed recognition of serious illness’ by healthcare workers not trained in paediatrics or not supervised by trained individuals.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 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

Citations52
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical RiskSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207