MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768010594 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0635

Nationwide Mortality Studies To Quantify Causes Of Death: Relevant Lessons From India’s Million Death Study

2017· article· en· W2768010594 on OpenAlexaff
Mireille Gomes, Rehana Begum, Prabha Sati, Rajesh Dikshit, Prakash C. Gupta, Rajesh Kumar, Jay Sheth, Asad Habib, Prabhat Jha

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerbal autopsyCause of deathMedicineEnvironmental healthHealth careDemographyDiseaseMedical emergencyEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Progress toward the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals requires improved information on mortality and causes of death. However, causes of many of the fifty million annual deaths in low- and middle-income countries remain unknown, as most of the deaths occur at home without medical attention. In 2001 India began the Million Death Study in 1.3 million nationally representative households. Nonmedical staff conduct verbal autopsies, which are structured interviews including a half-page narrative in local language of the family's story of the symptoms and events leading to death. Two physicians independently assess each death to arrive at an underlying cause of death. The study has thus far yielded information that substantially altered previous estimates of cause-specific mortality and risk factors in India. Similar robust studies are feasible at low cost in other low- and middle-income countries, particularly if they adopt electronic data management and ensure high quality of fieldwork and physician coding. Nationwide mortality studies enable the quantification of avoidable premature mortality and key risk factors for disease, and provide a practicable method to monitor progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations72
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth AffairsSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207