MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of Concordance Between Original Death Certifications and an Expert Panel Process in the Determination of Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood

2020· article· en· W3097884260 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laura Gould, Joyce H. Lee, Daniel Friedman, Kelly Lear, Katherine F. Maloney, J. Keith Pinckard, Peter T. Lin, Thomas Andrew, Kristin Roman, Kristen Landi, Heather Jarrell, Alex Williamson, J. C. Upshaw Downs, Kathy Pinneri, Christopher William, Joseph J. Maleszewski, R. Ross Reichard, Orrin Devinsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordanceCertificationMedicineSudden deathTetramineInternal medicineLawPolitical scienceMetallurgyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: The true incidence of sudden unexplained death in childhood (SUDC), already the fifth leading category of death among toddlers by current US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates, is potentially veiled by the varied certification processes by medicolegal investigative offices across the United States. Objective: To evaluate the frequency of SUDC incidence, understand its epidemiology, and assess the consistency of death certification among medical examiner and coroner offices in the US death investigation system. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this case series, 2 of 13 forensic pathologists (FPs) conducted masked reviews of 100 cases enrolled in the SUDC Registry and Research Collaborative (SUDCRRC). Children who died aged 11 months to 18 years from 36 US states, Canada, and the United Kingdom had been posthumously enrolled in the SUDCRRC by family members from 2014 to 2017. Comprehensive data from medicolegal investigative offices, clinical offices, and family members were reviewed. Data analysis was conducted from December 2014 to June 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Certified cause of death (COD) characterized as explained (accidental or natural) or unexplained, as determined by SUDCRRC masked review process. Results: In this study of 100 cases of SUDC (mean [SD] age, 32.1 [31.8] months; 58 [58.0%] boys; 82 [82.0%] White children; 92 [92.0%] from the United States), the original pathologist certified 43 cases (43.0%) as explained COD and 57 (57.0%) as unexplained COD. The SUDCRRC review process led to the following certifications: 16 (16.0%) were explained, 7 (7.0%) were undetermined because of insufficient data, and 77 (77.0%) were unexplained. Experts disagreed with the original COD in 40 cases (40.0%). These data suggest that SUDC incidence is higher than the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate (ie, 392 deaths in 2018). Conclusions and Relevance: To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive masked forensic pathology review process of sudden unexpected pediatric deaths, and it suggests that SUDC may often go unrecognized in US death investigations. Some unexpected pediatric deaths may be erroneously attributed to a natural or accidental COD, negatively affecting surveillance, research, public health funding, and medical care of surviving family members. To further address the challenges of accurate and consistent death certification in SUDC, future studies are warranted.

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)0.002
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 score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207