MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2573999886 · doi:10.1186/s13023-016-0554-4

Fatal anaphylaxis registries data support changes in the who anaphylaxis mortality coding rules

2017· review· en· W2573999886 on OpenAlexaff
Luciana Kase Tanno, F. Estelle R. Simons, Isabella Annesi‐Maesano, Moisés A. Calderón, Ségolène Aymé, Pascal Demoly

Bibliographic record

VenueOrphanet Journal of Rare Diseases · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersEuropean Academy of Allergy and Clinical ImmunologyAmerican Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology
KeywordsAnaphylaxisMedicineICD-10Coding (social sciences)Medical emergencyIntensive care medicineAllergyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anaphylaxis is defined as a severe life-threatening generalized or systemic hypersensitivity reaction. The difficulty of coding anaphylaxis fatalities under the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD) system is recognized as an important reason for under-notification of anaphylaxis deaths. On current death certificates, a limited number of ICD codes are valid as underlying causes of death, and death certificates do not include the word anaphylaxis per se . In this review, we provide evidences supporting the need for changes in WHO mortality coding rules and call for addition of anaphylaxis as an underlying cause of death on international death certificates . This publication will be included in support of a formal request to the WHO as a formal request for this move taking the 11 th ICD revision.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations41
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrphanet Journal of Rare DiseasesSame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207