MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2406086291

Coroners' autopsies: quality concerns in the United Kingdom.

2007· article· en· W2406086291 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Ranson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronerConfidentialityMedicineHealth careQuarter (Canadian coin)Medical emergencyPatient safetyAgency (philosophy)Family medicineNursingSuicide preventionPoison controlPolitical scienceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Safety in health care has increasingly become a key focus of health care providers. Data on "patient outcomes" and evidence-based clinical decision-making have led to real changes in health care policy and care provision. Specialist groups such as the National Patient Safety Agency which operates the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) in the United Kingdom are reliant on good information in order to identify factors that lead to poor patient care. In a recent study the NCEPOD reviewed the quality of coroners' autopsy reports on which they rely for much of their core data. The study found that just over half of the reports (52%) were considered satisfactory by the reviewers, 19% were good and 4% were excellent. However, over a quarter of autopsies were marked as poor or of an unacceptable standard. While analysing the factors associated with poor-quality autopsies, comments and recommendations were made with regard to the processes of death investigation and the degree to which the coroner's death investigation meets the needs of health care services.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207