ArticleJournal of global health2016
Validating hierarchical verbal autopsy expert algorithms in a large data set with known causes of death.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cause-specific mortality of children younger than 5 years in communities receiving biannual mass azithromycin treatment in Niger: verbal autopsy results from a cluster-randomised controlled trial.The Lancet. Global health · 2020Trial
- Childhood Mortality After Mass Distribution of Azithromycin: A Secondary Analysis of the PRET Cluster-randomized Trial in Niger.The Pediatric infectious disease journal · 2018Trial
- A verbal and social autopsy study to improve estimates of mortality determinants in Pakistan: study design and methods.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Rates and causes of neonatal and under-five mortality: insights from a national household survey in Pakistan.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Determining causes of death through an abridged verbal autopsy tool: a pilot test conducted among vulnerable communities in Kolkata, India.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Systematic estimates of global causes of neonatal and under 5 mortality in 2000-24: secondary data analysis using bayesian multinomial logistic regression.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Article
- Development of an effective illness severity measure and assessment of the impact of perceived illness severity on formal careseeking for fatal illnesses of neonates and infants in six sub-Saharan Africa countries and Pakistan.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Mortality in children and adolescents in Western Democratic Republic of Congo: retrospective analysis of verbal autopsy and demographic data from the Kimpese Health and Demographic Surveillance System.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
- Maternal interventions to decrease stillbirths and neonatal mortality in Tanzania: evidence from the 2017-18 cross-sectional Tanzania verbal and social autopsy study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Multi-Cause Calibration of Verbal Autopsy-Based Cause-Specific Mortality Estimates of Children and Neonates in Mozambique.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2023Article
- Countrywide Mortality Surveillance for Action in Mozambique: Results from a National Sample-Based Vital Statistics System for Mortality and Cause of Death.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2023Article
- Correcting for Verbal Autopsy Misclassification Bias in Cause-Specific Mortality Estimates.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2023Review
- Article
- Performance evaluation of machine learning and Computer Coded Verbal Autopsy (CCVA) algorithms for cause of death determination: A comparative analysis of data from rural South Africa.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Uncovering Causes of Childhood Death Using the Minimally Invasive Autopsy at the Community Level in an Urban Vulnerable Setting of Argentina: A Population-Based Study.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021Article
- Verbal/social autopsy analysis of causes and determinants of under-5 mortality in Tanzania from 2010 to 2016.Journal of global health · 2020Article
- Using propensity scores to estimate the effectiveness of maternal and newborn interventions to reduce neonatal mortality in Nigeria.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Effect of Mass Treatment with Azithromycin on Causes of Death in Children in Malawi: Secondary Analysis from the MORDOR Trial.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2020Article
- Using health facility deaths to estimate population causes of neonatal and child mortality in four African countries.BMC medicine · 2020Article
- Robustness of the Tariff method for diagnosing verbal autopsies: impact of additional site data on the relationship between symptom and cause.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.