MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162672307 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20200201

Identifying maternal deaths with the use of hospital data versus death certificates: a retrospective population-based study

2021· article· en· W3162672307 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kayvan Aflaki, Alison L. Park, Chantal Nelson, Wei Luo, Joel G. Ray

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPublic Health Agency of CanadaSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyRetrospective cohort studyAbortionPopulationMiscarriageBirth certificateConcordanceLive birthObstetricsPediatricsEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Accurate identification of maternal deaths is paramount for audit and policy purposes. Our aim was to determine the accuracy and completeness of data on maternal deaths in hospital and those recorded on a death certificate, and the level of agreement between the 2 data sources. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective population-based study using data for Ontario, Canada, from Apr. 1, 2002, to Dec. 31, 2015. We used Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) databases to identify deaths during inpatient, emergency department and same-day surgery encounters. We captured Vital Statistics deaths in the Office of the Registrar General, Deaths (ORGD) data set. Deaths were considered within 42 days and within 365 days after a pregnancy outcome (live birth, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy or induced abortion) for all multiple and singleton pregnancies. We calculated agreement statistics and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Among 1 679 455 live births and stillbirths, 398 pregnancy-related deaths in the ORGD data set were mapped to a birth in CIHI databases, and 77 (16.2%) were not. Among 2 039 849 recognized pregnancies, 534 pregnancy-related deaths in the ORGD data set were linked to CIHI records, and 68 (11.3%) were not. Among live births and stillbirths, after pregnancy-related deaths in the ORGD data set not matched to a maternal death in the CIHI databases were removed, concordance measures between CIHI and ORGD records for maternal death within 42 days after delivery included a κ value of 0.87 (95% CI 0.82-0.91) and positive percent agreement of 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.94). The corresponding measures were similar for maternal death within 42 days after the end of a recognized pregnancy. When unlinked pregnancy-related deaths in the ORGD data set were retained, agreement measures declined for death within 42 days after a live birth or stillbirth (κ = 0.68, 95% CI 0.62-0.74). For maternal death within 365 days after a live birth or stillbirth, or after the end of a recognized pregnancy, the concordance statistics were generally favourable when unlinked pregnancy-related deaths in the ORGD data set were removed but were substantially declined when they were retained. INTERPRETATION: Maternal mortality cannot be ascertained solely with the use of hospital data, including beyond 42 days after the end of pregnancy. To improve linkage, we propose including health insurance numbers on provincial and territorial medical death certificates.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207