MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027713984 · doi:10.1101/2020.05.15.20103234

Trends in snakebite mortality in India from 2000 to 2019 in a nationally representative mortality study

2020· preprint· en· W3027713984 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wilson Suraweera, David A. Warrell, Romulus Whitaker, Geetha Menon, Rashmi Rodrigues, Sze Hang Fu, Rehana Begum, Prabha Sati, Kapila Piyasena, Mehak Bhatia, Patrick Brown, Prabhat Jha

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVenomous Animal Envenomation and Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDemographyEnvironmental healthVerbal autopsyQuarter (Canadian coin)GeographySocioeconomicsCause of deathDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Health Organization call to halve global snakebite deaths by 2030 will requires substantial progress in India. We analyzed 2,833 snakebite deaths from 611,483 verbal autopsies in the nationally representative Indian Million Death Study from 2001-14, and conducted a systematic literature review from 2000-19 covering 87,590 snakebites. We estimate that India had 1.2 million snakebite deaths (average 58,000/year) from 2000-19. Nearly half occurred at ages 30-69 years and over a quarter in children <15 years. Most occurred at home in rural areas. About 70% occurred in eight higher-burden states and half during the rainy season and at low altitude. The risk of an Indian dying from snakebite before age 70 is about 1 in 250, but notably higher in some areas. More crudely, we estimate 1.11-1.77 million bites occurred in 2015, of which 70% showed symptoms of envenomation. Prevention and treatment strategies might substantially reduce snakebite mortality in India.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicVenomous Animal Envenomation and StudiesFrench-language works237,207