A COMPARISON OF CAUSE OF DEATH DETERMINATION IN MEN PREVIOUSLY DIAGNOSED WITH PROSTATE CANCER WHO DIED IN 1985 OR 1995
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We quantified the agreement between the underlying cause of death determination from information in hospital medical records and on death certificates, and determined whether the frequency of assigning death from prostate cancer had changed since the introduction of testing for prostate specific antigen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed the information in hospital medical records and on death certificates for men previously diagnosed with prostate cancer who died in 1985 or 1995. RESULTS: The underlying cause of death determinations from a review of 201 hospital medical records agreed with those from information on part 1 of the death certificate in 87% of cases and with those using the International Classification of Diseases-9 system coding rules in 80%. Agreement was higher in men who were older than those who were younger at the time of death, and higher in those diagnosed with prostate cancer several years before death than in those diagnosed shortly before death. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high level of agreement concerning the underlying cause of death after a review of the information in hospital medical records and on death certificates for men with prostate cancer when cause of death was viewed as a dichotomous variable. The International Classification of Diseases-9 coding rules concerning the underlying cause of death favor overreporting rather than underreporting prostate cancer deaths compared with a review of hospital medical records. Cause of death determination does not appear to have changed after the introduction of prostate specific antigen testing.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".