MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330722464 · doi:10.1097/paf.0b013e31820c2ee6

Errors on Death Certificates Requiring Amendments

2011· article· en· W2330722464 on OpenAlexaff
Danit Fischtein, Stephen J. Cina

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical examinerDeath certificateMedicineAccidentalCoronerCause of deathMedical emergencyDemographyPoison controlInjury preventionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The medical examiner's office in Broward County is responsible for determining the cause and manner of death in cases falling under its jurisdiction and issuing death certificates on these decedents. Amendments are occasionally required to correct misinformation on death certificates or within the autopsy reports. The purpose of this study was to investigate the major causes for the amendments and to develop strategies to avoid future errors. We found 128 cases from 2006 to 2007 that required amendments; 103 contained sufficient data in the file for further analysis. Over this time period, 3790 death certificates were issued over that same period, resulting in a 3.37% amendment rate. In this study, the cohort included both males and females with a ratio of 2:1. Their ages ranged from newborn to 103 years, with a mean age of 49 years. Of the 103 amended cases, amendments were made to the cause (n = 30) and often the manner (n = 21) of death listed on the death certificate; the remaining changes were limited to the autopsy report. The most common reasons for amendments included reception of delayed laboratory findings (35%), acquisition of additional medical history (22.5%), and typographic errors (15.5%). Typographic errors mainly occurred because of inaccuracies in the names originally provided to our office, the use of aliases by decedents, incorrect personal/demographic history, or various misspellings by funeral homes or medical examiner staff. The most significant reclassifications involved changing certified natural deaths to accidental overdoses and vice versa, based on toxicological analysis. Because of delays in specimen turnaround, these amendments often were made months after the original death certificate was issued. STAT urine drug screening has been helpful in reducing the number of amendments made, but certain drugs of significance are missed by rapid screens. Given that our office performed complete toxicological analysis on all cases over this period, it seems likely that we detected several overdoses that would have been missed if natural deaths were not routinely screened for potential toxins.

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.296
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.296
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & PathologySame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207