How Well Do We Communicate Autopsy Findings to Next of Kin?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context. —A failure of communication among families, physicians, and pathologists is recognized as a major cause of declining autopsy rates and may be involved in increased litigation. Objective. —To determine how effectively autopsy results are communicated to the next of kin and how satisfied families are with the process from consent to relaying of the results. Design. —A retrospective telephone survey of next of kin of 106 consecutive patients autopsied at a major teaching hospital. The family was asked questions on the process of obtaining consent and the information they received back from health care providers. Results. —Thirty-two percent of relatives indicated that they were not adequately informed as to the purpose of the autopsy. Eighty percent of respondents were notified of or obtained the results. The ways in which the autopsy findings were communicated varied, but 54% were involved in a discussion of the results with a medical professional. More than half of the families wished to have a copy of the results. Two-thirds felt they were satisfied with the explanation of the results, but an important cause of dissatisfaction was the use of unfamiliar medical terminology. When the family's understanding of the cause of death was compared with the diagnoses on the autopsy reports, 65% of families demonstrated an accurate knowledge of the autopsy findings, 28% had a general understanding, and for only 8% was their knowledge judged inaccurate. Overall, 92% of notified respondents felt the autopsy had served a useful purpose, mostly for personal reasons. Conclusions. —We conclude that the autopsy fulfills an important need for many families; however, the purpose of the autopsy and the findings need to be more effectively communicated.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it