ArticleBMC medicine2025
Computer assisted verbal autopsy: comparing large language models to physicians for assigning causes to 6939 deaths in Sierra Leone from 2019-2022.
Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correction: Computer assisted verbal autopsy: comparing large language models to physicians for assigning causes to 6939 deaths in Sierra Leone from 2019-2022.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of verbal autopsy using a large language model to biologically confirmed causes of death for malaria and other communicable diseases among children in six sub-Saharan African countries.Malaria journal · 2026Article
- Computer assisted verbal autopsy: comparing large language models to physicians for assigning causes to 6939 deaths in Sierra Leone from 2019-2022.BMC medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVerbal autopsies (VAs) collect information on deaths in low and middle-income countries occurring outside healthcare facilities to estimate causes of death (CODs) for use in epidemiological or planning studies. Physician coding of VAs focused on the narrative of deaths and past symptoms is current best practice. Large language models (LLM) such as GPT-5 enable possible use of the narrative portion of VAs to assign CODs. However, there are few if any robust comparisons of LLMs to physician coding.
methodsWe analyzed 6,939 VA records from a random sample of deaths in Sierra Leone (2019-2022) to compare five models: three LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-5) and two based on symptom algorithms (InterVA-5, InSilicoVA), against physician-assigned CODs. GPT models used narratives, whereas InterVA-5 and InSilicoVA relied on questionnaires. CODs were grouped into 19, 10, and 7 categories for adult, child, and neonatal deaths. We used cause specific mortality fraction (CSMF) accuracy and partial chance corrected concordance (PCCC) to assess population and individual-level agreement respectively, compared to the standard of physician coding. We stratified analyses by age group as CODs vary among neonates, children and adults.
resultsOverall, GPT-5 outperformed all models (PCCC = 0.71), followed by GPT-4 (0.61), GPT-3.5 (0.56), InSilicoVA (0.44), and InterVA-5 (0.44). GPT-5 achieved the highest performance for adult (0.68), child (0.71), and neonatal (0.65) deaths. Across ages, performance increased from 1 month to 14 years and declined from 15 to 69 years. GPT-5, GPT-4, GPT-3.5, and InSilicoVA achieved the highest PCCC in 14, 7, 7, and 2 of the 30 CODs, respectively. At the population level, GPT-5 achieved the highest CSMF accuracy (0.9), while all other models had comparable performance (0.74-0.79).
conclusionsGPT models and InSilicoVA showed greater performance for specific CODs at the individual-level. GPT models demonstrated improvements over InterVA-5 and InSilicoVA models. This study provides foundational evidence for integrating LLM and algorithmic models with physician coding to improve the quality of VA data.
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.