Dashboard With Bump Charts to Visualize the Changes in the Rankings of Leading Causes of Death According to Two Lists: National Population-Based Time-Series Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health advocates and the media often use the rankings of the leading causes of death (CODs) to draw attention to health issues with relatively high mortality burdens in a population. The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) publishes "Deaths: leading causes" annually. The ranking list used by the NCHS and statistical offices in several countries includes broad categories such as cancer, heart disease, and accidents. However, the list used by the World Health Organization (WHO) subdivides broad categories (17 for cancer, 8 for heart disease, and 6 for accidents) and classifies Alzheimer disease and related dementias and hypertensive diseases more comprehensively compared to the NCHS list. Regarding the data visualization of the rankings of leading CODs, the bar chart is the most commonly used graph; nevertheless, bar charts may not effectively reveal the changes in the rankings over time. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to use a dashboard with bump charts to visualize the changes in the rankings of the leading CODs in the United States by sex and age from 1999 to 2021, according to 2 lists (NCHS vs WHO). METHODS: Data on the number of deaths in each category from each list for each year were obtained from the Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research system, maintained by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Rankings were based on the absolute number of deaths. The dashboard enables users to filter by list (NCHS or WHO) and demographic characteristics (sex and age) and highlight a particular COD. RESULTS: Several CODs that were only on the WHO list, including brain, breast, colon, hematopoietic, lung, pancreas, prostate, and uterus cancer (all classified as cancer on the NCHS list); unintentional transport injury; poisoning; drowning; and falls (all classified as accidents on the NCHS list), were among the 10 leading CODs in several sex and age subgroups. In contrast, several CODs that appeared among the 10 leading CODs according to the NCHS list, such as pneumonia, kidney disease, cirrhosis, and sepsis, were excluded from the 10 leading CODs if the WHO list was used. The rank of Alzheimer disease and related dementias and hypertensive diseases according to the WHO list was higher than their ranks according to the NCHS list. A marked increase in the ranking of unintentional poisoning among men aged 45-64 years was noted from 2008 to 2021. CONCLUSIONS: A dashboard with bump charts can be used to improve the visualization of the changes in the rankings of leading CODs according to the WHO and NCHS lists as well as demographic characteristics; the visualization can help users make informed decisions regarding the most appropriate ranking list for their needs.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".