ArticlePloS one2024
Misclassification of causes of death among a small all-autopsied group of former nuclear workers: Death certificates vs. autopsy reports.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inference under outcome misclassification in health risk models using a simulation study with a validation dataset.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Trends in Sudden Cardiac Death Related Mortality in Adults in the United States: A CDC WONDER Database Analysis, 1999-2020.Clinical cardiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The U.S. Transuranium and Uranium Registries performs autopsies on each of its deceased Registrants as a part of its mission to follow up occupationally-exposed individuals. This provides a unique opportunity to explore death certificate misclassification errors, and the factors that influence them, among this small population of former nuclear workers. Underlying causes of death from death certificates and autopsy reports were coded using the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). These codes were then used to quantify misclassification rates among 268 individuals for whom both full autopsy reports and death certificates with legible underlying causes of death were available. When underlying causes of death were compared between death certificates and autopsy reports, death certificates correctly identified the underlying cause of death's ICD-10 disease chapter in 74.6% of cases. The remaining 25.4% of misclassified cases resulted in over-classification rates that ranged from 1.2% for external causes of mortality to 12.2% for circulatory disease, and under-classification rates that ranged from 7.7% for external causes of mortality to 47.4% for respiratory disease. Neoplasms had generally lower misclassification rates with 4.3% over-classification and 13.3% under-classification. A logistic regression revealed that the odds of a match were 2.8 times higher when clinical history was mentioned on the autopsy report than when it was not. Similarly, the odds of a match were 3.4 times higher when death certificates were completed using autopsy findings than when autopsy findings were not used. This analysis excluded cases where it could not be determined if autopsy findings were used to complete death certificates. The findings of this study are useful to investigate the impact of death certificate misclassification errors on radiation risk estimates and, therefore, improve the reliability of epidemiological studies.
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.