Validation of malaria-attributed deaths using verbal autopsy studies: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malaria contributes substantially to the persistent burden of child deaths in sub-Saharan Africa. Accurate and comprehensive malaria mortality data are crucial to monitor the progress in reducing malaria incidence and mortality. Verbal Autopsy (VA) ascertains the cause of death despite its limitations leading to misclassification errors. Minimally Invasive Tissue Sampling (MITS) is being conducted in some settings as an alternative to Complete Diagnostic Autopsy (CDA). The present study examines the validity of malaria-related deaths comparing VA diagnoses with those obtained through MITS and/or CDA. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search for original studies in English language using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL via EBSCO, Scopus, The Cochrane Library via Wiley, Google Scholar and searching the MITS Surveillance Alliance papers was carried out. The reference period was January 1, 1990-March 31, 2024. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were adopted. RESULTS: Among 71 articles identified in the databases, 21 matched the eligibility criteria. Qualitative syntheses showed that malaria Cause Specific Mortality Fractions (CSMFs) across various studies ranged from 2 to 31%. Plasmodium falciparum was mostly responsible for these deaths and the most common complications were anaemia and cerebral malaria. The sensitivity and specificity of the VA validation studies ranged from 18.4% to 33% and from 86.6% to 97%, respectively, and there was a high level of misclassification for both InSilico and Expert Algorithm VA for malaria compared to MITS. The overall concordance rates between MITS and CDA diagnoses ranged from 68 to 90%, with the highest concordance seen in deaths due to infectious diseases and malignant tumours. Clinical data increased diagnostic coincidence between MITS blind to clinical data and the gold standard CDA by 11%. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive review finds that MITS demonstrated better accuracy compared to VA in diagnosing malaria-attributed deaths, particularly in hospital settings. The high specificity of malaria in VA diagnosis suggests population-based estimates of the proportion of deaths due to malaria are broadly plausible.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".