ArticlePloS one2024
Adapting the log quadratic model to estimate age- and cause-specific mortality among neonates.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEstimates for cause-specific mortality for neonates are generally available for all countries for neonates overall (0 to 28 days). However, cause-specific mortality is generally not being estimated at higher age resolution for neonates, despite evidence of heterogeneity in the causes of deaths during this period. We aimed to use the adapted log quadratic model in a setting where verbal autopsy was the primary means of determining cause of death.
methodsWe examined the timing and causes of death among a cohort of neonates in rural Nepal followed as part of the Nepal Oil Massage Study (NOMS). We adapted methods defined by Wilmoth et al (2012) and Guillot et al. (2022) to estimate age and cause-specific mortality among neonates. We used cross validation to estimate the accuracy of this model, holding out each three month period. We took the average cross validation across hold out as our measure of model performance and compared to a standard approach which did not account for the heterogeneity in cause-specific mortality rate within this age group.
resultsThere were 957 neonates in the NOMS cohort with known age and cause of death. We estimated an average cross-validation error of 0.9 per 1000 live births for mortality due to prematurity in the first week, and 1.1 for mortality due to birth asphyxia, compared to the standard approach, having error 7.4 and 7.8 per 1000 live births, respectively. Generally mortality rates for less common causes such as congenital malformations and pneumonia were estimated with higher cross-validation error.
conclusionsThe stability and precision of these estimates compare favorably with similar estimates developed with higher quality cause-specific mortality surveillance from China, demonstrating that reliably estimating causes of mortality at high resolution is possible for neonates in low resources areas.
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.