Attitudes Towards Forensic Autopsy Standard B3.7 and the Use of Physician Extenders in Select Autopsy Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have demonstrated that autopsy is the gold standard for determining cause and manner of death. Indeed, the current National Association of Medical Examiners standard B3.7 states that a forensic pathologist (FP) shall perform a forensic autopsy when the death is by apparent intoxication by alcohol, drugs, or poison. Unfortunately, the recent increase in drug-related deaths has led to some question about the feasibility of maintaining compliance with standard B3.7. We constructed a voluntary survey to address consensus on standard B3.7 and the use of supervised accredited pathologists' assistants (PAs) in performing select medicolegal autopsies. Additional questions were included to help characterize variables related to FP's workload and experience. Each of these variables was predicted to influence FP's attitudes toward B3.7 and the use of PAs. Our respondent pool (n = 107) consisted primarily of actively practicing FPs with administrative responsibilities (42%) and actively practicing FPs without administrative responsibilities (41%). Sixty-five percent agreed that standard B3.7 is appropriate. Opinion on the use of PAs was split between those who agreed (45%) and those who did not (44%). Tendency to agree with either B3.7 or the use of PAs was not a function of FP's individual or office workload; however, respondents were more likely to agree with B3.7 if they previously experienced a case where internal autopsy findings radically altered diagnosis in an otherwise suggestive overdose case (P < 0.001). In certain offices and under certain conditions, the use of PAs may be one solution to ensuring all potential overdose deaths receive an autopsy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".