Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26953965›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2016

Validating hierarchical verbal autopsy expert algorithms in a large data set with known causes of death.

Henry D Kalter, Jamie Perin, Robert E Black

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Correcting for Verbal Autopsy Misclassification Bias in Cause-Specific Mortality Estimates.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Henry D KalterHealth Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jamie PerinCenter for Child and Community Health Research, Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Institute for International Programs, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Robert E BlackInstitute for International Programs, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysician assessment historically has been the most common method of analyzing verbal autopsy (VA) data. Recently, the World Health Organization endorsed two automated methods, Tariff 2.0 and InterVA-4, which promise greater objectivity and lower cost. A disadvantage of the Tariff method is that it requires a training data set from a prior validation study, while InterVA relies on clinically specified conditional probabilities. We undertook to validate the hierarchical expert algorithm analysis of VA data, an automated, intuitive, deterministic method that does not require a training data set.

methodsUsing Population Health Metrics Research Consortium study hospital source data, we compared the primary causes of 1629 neonatal and 1456 1-59 month-old child deaths from VA expert algorithms arranged in a hierarchy to their reference standard causes. The expert algorithms were held constant, while five prior and one new "compromise" neonatal hierarchy, and three former child hierarchies were tested. For each comparison, the reference standard data were resampled 1000 times within the range of cause-specific mortality fractions (CSMF) for one of three approximated community scenarios in the 2013 WHO global causes of death, plus one random mortality cause proportions scenario. We utilized CSMF accuracy to assess overall population-level validity, and the absolute difference between VA and reference standard CSMFs to examine particular causes. Chance-corrected concordance (CCC) and Cohen's kappa were used to evaluate individual-level cause assignment.

resultsOverall CSMF accuracy for the best-performing expert algorithm hierarchy was 0.80 (range 0.57-0.96) for neonatal deaths and 0.76 (0.50-0.97) for child deaths. Performance for particular causes of death varied, with fairly flat estimated CSMF over a range of reference values for several causes. Performance at the individual diagnosis level was also less favorable than that for overall CSMF (neonatal: best CCC = 0.23, range 0.16-0.33; best kappa = 0.29, 0.23-0.35; child: best CCC = 0.40, 0.19-0.45; best kappa = 0.29, 0.07-0.35).

conclusionsExpert algorithms in a hierarchy offer an accessible, automated method for assigning VA causes of death. Overall population-level accuracy is similar to that of more complex machine learning methods, but without need for a training data set from a prior validation study.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCause of DeathDatasets as TopicAutopsyChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalePhysician's RoleProbabilityReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID26953965
PMCPMC4766791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.