ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2022
Sources of bias in death determination: A research note articulating the need to include systemic sources of biases along with cognitive ones as impacting mortality data.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implications of the 2017 change in the French death certificate for the accuracy of mortality statistics worldwide.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Biased and Biasing: The Hidden Bias Cascade and Bias Snowball Effects.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Excess natural-cause mortality in US counties and its association with reported COVID-19 deaths.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Changes in Alcohol-Specific Mortality During the COVID-19 Pandemic in 14 European Countries.Sucht · 2023Article
- Article
- Sources of bias in death determination: A research note articulating the need to include systemic sources of biases along with cognitive ones as impacting mortality data.Journal of forensic sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There are structural and organizational factors that impact how and what mortality data are collected. There are individual decision-making processes and implicit cognitive biases that influence how and what mortality data are collected. Yet there seems to be a disconnect between how and why these two broad sources of bias may collide and how both need to be understood in order to be able to approach solutions aimed at strengthening the accuracy of mortality data. Using results from a mixed-method, long-term research project at four medicolegal offices in two countries, France and the United States, this research note proposes that truly understanding the sources of implicit cognitive bias in forensic pathologists and other medicolegal actors requires knowledge of legal, cultural, and organizational structures that shape medicolegal systems and in turn constrain individual actors' decision-making processes. The goal is to advocate for multilevel and multi-methods approaches to propose systemic solutions to the issue of implicit cognitive biases in forensic pathologists and other medicolegal actors' decision-making processes. For this purpose, the author outlines a series of specific issues to be integrated in future research.
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.