MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120069145 · doi:10.1002/sim.10199

Estimating causes of maternal death in data‐sparse contexts

2024· article· en· W3120069145 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Y. C. Chong, Marija Pejchinovska, Monica Alexander

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMultinomial distributionData qualityComputer scienceMissing dataBayesian probabilityPopulationQuality (philosophy)Resource allocationEconometricsEnvironmental healthMedicineMachine learningArtificial intelligenceBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the underlying causes of maternal death across all regions of the world is essential to inform policies and resource allocation to reduce the mortality burden. However, in many countries there exists very little data on the causes of maternal death, and data that do exist do not capture the entire population at risk. In this article, we present a Bayesian hierarchical multinomial model to estimate maternal cause of death distributions globally, regionally, and for all countries worldwide. The framework combines data from various sources to inform estimates, including data from civil registration and vital systems, smaller-scale surveys and studies, and high-quality data from confidential enquiries and surveillance systems. The framework accounts for varying data quality and coverage, and allows for situations where one or more causes of death are missing. We illustrate the results of the model on three case-study countries that have different data availability situations.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207