MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410343456 · doi:10.2196/72330

Establishing a System for Medical Certification of Cause of Death for Noninstitutional Deaths in a Selected Area of Kolar District, Karnataka, India: Protocol for a Population-Based Feasibility and Validation Study

2025· article· en· W4410343456 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Madhusudan Muralidhar, Sukanya Rangamani, Vaitheeswaran Kulothungan, Priyanka Das, Monesh B Vishwakarma

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)CertificationCause of deathMedicinePopulationDistrict hospitalFamily medicineMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthAlternative medicineDiseasePathologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medical Certification of Cause of Death (MCCD) coverage in India is only 22.5%, largely due to a significant proportion of deaths occurring outside hospitals (noninstitutional deaths). The cause of death (CoD) in such cases is unlikely to be certified by any doctor. This study attempts to address this gap by developing an MCCD system for noninstitutional deaths in India. OBJECTIVE: This study will assess the feasibility of a physician-derived cause of death (PhyCoD) approach for deducing CoD in noninstitutional deaths in a selected area of Kolar Taluk, Karnataka, and validate this approach. METHODS: This population-based feasibility and validation study will be conducted in 4 selected hospitals and 2 Primary Health Centre (PHC) areas in Kolar taluk, Kolar district, Karnataka, India. We developed 4 PhyCoD questionnaires: maternal, neonatal, child, and adult. Institutional deaths that occurred over the previous 10 months in these selected hospitals with detailed case records available were selected as "gold standard" cases. Trained investigators abstracted the history from these case records into the questionnaires and deduced the CoD sequence of events. The investigators then elicited the history from the deceased's relatives using the PhyCoD questionnaire and deduced the CoD sequence of events. This will be compared with the gold standard CoD sequence of events deduced from medical records. The extent of agreement will be measured. The tool will be revised based on the pilot phase experiences. For all brought dead cases to the 4 hospitals and home deaths in the 2 PHC areas over a 3-month period, doctors in these hospitals and PHC medical officers, respectively, will elicit the history from the deceased's kin using the PhyCoD questionnaires and arrive at a CoD sequence of events. This CoD sequence of events will be validated against the gold standard autopsy whenever possible (in brought dead cases). The PhyCoD approach will also be tested for inter-rater reliability by independent investigators on a random sample of noninstitutional deaths. RESULTS: Institutional ethics committee clearance (January 2024), recruitment and training of project staff (January 2024-January 2025), preparation of questionnaires and application (August 2024-February 2025), pilot phase data collection (48 cases; August 2024-December 2024), and training of the doctors in the participating hospitals and PHC medical officers (December 2024) are complete. A total of 48 cases (32 adult, 7 child, 3 maternal, and 6 neonatal) were included in the pilot phase. Data review and analysis of the pilot phase data are underway. CONCLUSIONS: The study is expected to provide information about the validity and feasibility of the PhyCoD approach. Depending on the study's outcomes, the tool may be adopted by more states, leading to increased coverage of noninstitutional deaths under MCCD, improved accuracy, and reduced delay of CoD reporting for noninstitutional deaths. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/72330.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207