Autopsy rates and the misclassification of suicide and accident deaths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mortality statistics are critical to determine the burden of disease. Certain causes of death are prone to being misclassified on cause of death certificates. This poses a serious risk for public health and safety, as accurate death certificates form the basis for mortality statistics, which in turn are crucial for research, funding allocation and health interventions. This study uses generalised estimating equations and regression modelling to investigate for which cause of death categories suicide and accident deaths are misclassified as. National mortality statistics and autopsy rates from North America and Europe covering the past forty years were analysed to determine the associations between the different causes of death in cross-sectional and longitudinal models. We find that suicides and deaths by accidents are frequently mutually misclassified. We also find that suicides are frequently misclassified as drug use disorder deaths, in contrast to accident deaths, which are not misclassified as drug use disorder deaths. Furthermore, suicides do not seem to be misclassified as undetermined deaths or ill-defined deaths. The frequency of misclassification shows that the quality of death certificates should be improved, and autopsies may be used systematically to control the quality of 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".