MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206110688 · doi:10.2196/32426

The Use of Cremation Data for Timely Mortality Surveillance During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Ontario, Canada: Validation Study

2022· article· en· W4206110688 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Gemma Postill, Regan Murray, Andrew S. Wilton, Richard A. Wells, Renee Sirbu, Mark Daley, Laura C. Rosella

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteTrillium Health CentrePublic Health OntarioOffice of the Chief Medical ExaminerInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesPublic Health Agency of CanadaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronerPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)CertificationGeography2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPublic healthEnvironmental healthMedicineDemographyMedical emergencyPoison controlPolitical scienceInjury preventionOutbreakDiseaseSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Early estimates of excess mortality are crucial for understanding the impact of COVID-19. However, there is a lag of several months in the reporting of vital statistics mortality data for many jurisdictions, including across Canada. In Ontario, a Canadian province, certification by a coroner is required before cremation can occur, creating real-time mortality data that encompasses the majority of deaths within the province. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate the use of cremation data as a timely surveillance tool for all-cause mortality during a public health emergency in a jurisdiction with delays in vital statistics data. Specifically, this study aimed to validate this surveillance tool by determining the stability, timeliness, and robustness of its real-time estimation of all-cause mortality. METHODS: Cremation records from January 2020 until April 2021 were compared to the historical records from 2017 to 2019, grouped according to week, age, sex, and whether COVID-19 was the cause of death. Cremation data were compared to Ontario's provisional vital statistics mortality data released by Statistics Canada. The 2020 and 2021 records were then compared to previous years (2017-2019) to determine whether there was excess mortality within various age groups and whether deaths attributed to COVID-19 accounted for the entirety of the excess mortality. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2019, cremations were performed for 67.4% (95% CI 67.3%-67.5%) of deaths. The proportion of cremated deaths remained stable throughout 2020, even within age and sex categories. Cremation records are 99% complete within 3 weeks of the date of death, which precedes the compilation of vital statistics data by several months. Consequently, during the first wave (from April to June 2020), cremation records detected a 16.9% increase (95% CI 14.6%-19.3%) in all-cause mortality, a finding that was confirmed several months later with cremation data. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of Ontarians cremated and the completion of cremation data several months before vital statistics did not change meaningfully during the COVID-19 pandemic period, establishing that the pandemic did not significantly alter cremation practices. Cremation data can be used to accurately estimate all-cause mortality in near real-time, particularly when real-time mortality estimates are needed to inform policy decisions for public health measures. The accuracy of this excess mortality estimation was confirmed by comparing it with official vital statistics data. These findings demonstrate the utility of cremation data as a complementary data source for timely mortality information during public health emergencies.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.318
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.109 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance→Same topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→French-language works237,207→