MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077027884 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030018

Prospective Study of One Million Deaths in India: Rationale, Design, and Validation Results

2005· article· en· W2077027884 on OpenAlexafffund
Prabhat Jha, Vendhan Gajalakshmi, Prakash C. Gupta, Rajesh Kumar, Prem Mony, Neeraj Dhingra, Richard Peto

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Global Health ResearchSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersFogarty International CenterHospital for Sick ChildrenUnited Arab Emirates UniversityIndian Council of Medical ResearchGovernment of CanadaWorld Health OrganizationUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Oxford
KeywordsMedicineVerbal autopsyCause of deathEnvironmental healthEpidemiologySocioeconomic statusDemographyDiseaseMortality ratePublic healthPopulationGerontologyPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Over 75% of the annual estimated 9.5 million deaths in India occur in the home, and the large majority of these do not have a certified cause. India and other developing countries urgently need reliable quantification of the causes of death. They also need better epidemiological evidence about the relevance of physical (such as blood pressure and obesity), behavioral (such as smoking, alcohol, HIV-1 risk taking, and immunization history), and biological (such as blood lipids and gene polymorphisms) measurements to the development of disease in individuals or disease rates in populations. We report here on the rationale, design, and implementation of the world's largest prospective study of the causes and correlates of mortality. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We will monitor nearly 14 million people in 2.4 million nationally representative Indian households (6.3 million people in 1.1 million households in the 1998-2003 sample frame and 7.6 million people in 1.3 million households in the 2004-2014 sample frame) for vital status and, if dead, the causes of death through a well-validated verbal autopsy (VA) instrument. About 300,000 deaths from 1998-2003 and some 700,000 deaths from 2004-2014 are expected; of these about 850,000 will be coded by two physicians to provide causes of death by gender, age, socioeconomic status, and geographical region. Pilot studies will evaluate the addition of physical and biological measurements, specifically dried blood spots. Preliminary results from over 35,000 deaths suggest that VA can ascertain the leading causes of death, reduce the misclassification of causes, and derive the probable underlying cause of death when it has not been reported. VA yields broad classification of the underlying causes in about 90% of deaths before age 70. In old age, however, the proportion of classifiable deaths is lower. By tracking underlying demographic denominators, the study permits quantification of absolute mortality rates. Household case-control, proportional mortality, and nested case-control methods permit quantification of risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study will reliably document not only the underlying cause of child and adult deaths but also key risk factors (behavioral, physical, environmental, and eventually, genetic). It offers a globally replicable model for reliably estimating cause-specific mortality using VA and strengthens India's flagship mortality monitoring system. Despite the misclassification that is still expected, the new cause-of-death data will be substantially better than that available previously.

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)0.080
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0800.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations322
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207