MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2892056745 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i4.857

Validating the accuracy of place of death in Vital Statistics of Calgary Zone residents in 2015

2018· article· en· W2892056745 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Fong, Pin Cai, Aynharan Sinnarajah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlace of deathVital signsNursing homesEmergency departmentMedical emergencyCause of deathHealth statisticsDescriptive statisticsPalliative careEmergency medicineNursingStatisticsPopulationEnvironmental healthDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionAdministrators and researchers of community and hospital based palliative care services have relied on Vital Statistics for place of death information without knowing the full extent of its accuracy. We sought to understand and document whether Vital Statistics’ place of death is confirmed by other data sources. Objectives and ApproachUnderstand the degree of confirmation of Vital Statistics' place of death with multiple data sources using a first found cascading method. The following order of cascading data sources were used: Discharge Abstract Data (DAD), National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS), Strata Health Pathways (hospice), ACCIS (LTC), and PARIS (supportive living). Hospital deaths were first confirmed using DAD. If not found, we searched the next data source NACRS (Emergency Department) followed by hospice, long term care, and supportive living. If the death was not found in these five sources, death was classified as 'Other" and the residency of home was inferred. ResultsOf 7,176 deaths recorded in Vital Statistics (VS), 4,749 were confirmed of which 78% (N=2580) of VS hospital deaths, 96.2 (N=1179) of VS home deaths, and 60.3% (N=990) of VS Nursing Home deaths were confirmed. Inferred nursing home death were recorded as Hospital (N=147), Auxiliary Hospitals (N=61), and Other (N=41). Inferred home deaths were classified as Other (256), Hospital (84), Nursing Home (33), Unknown (7), and En Route (7). Inferred en route or emergency department death were classified as hospital (360). Supportive living deaths, not a category in Vital Statistics, were classified as Other (N=81), Nursing Home (N=51), At Home (N=33). Hospice death, no longer a category in Vital Statistics since 2012, were classified as Nursing Home (N=563), Hospital (N=152), Auxiliary Hospital (N=168), Other (N=334). Conclusion/Implications66% of 7,176 Deaths in Vital Statistics were confirmed by other data sources. Using multiple data sources, hospital deaths would decrease by 22%, confirmed nursing home death would increase by 25%, and hospice deaths would no longer be misclassified into hospital (N=152), Aux. Hospital (N=168), and Other (N=334).

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
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 score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data Science→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→