ArticleBMJ mental health2026
Automating thematic review of prevention of future deaths reports: concordance study of a child-suicide analysis using large language models.
Article in BMJ mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPrevention of future deaths (PFD) reports issued by coroners in England and Wales identify systemic safety hazards but are difficult to analyse at scale. Reports are not machine-readable, lack consistent metadata and cannot be reliably searched or exported, meaning prior national reviews have relied on labour-intensive manual screening and coding.
objectiveTo evaluate whether a fully automated, vision-enabled large language model (LLM) pipeline (PFD Toolkit) can replicate and extend the Office for National Statistics (ONS) thematic review of child-suicide PFD reports, and to assess concordance with blinded clinical adjudication.
methodsAll PFD reports published between July 2013 and November 2023 (n=4730) were scraped from judiciary.uk and processed using PFD Toolkit, which combines optical character recognition with LLM-powered screening and thematic coding. Reports were classified for child suicide (≤18 years), addressee categories and 23 coroner-concern subthemes mirroring the ONS coding frame. Agreement was evaluated against a blinded clinical reference standard: three psychiatrists independently adjudicated a stratified sample of 146 reports (73 Toolkit-positive cases and 73 decoys), with disagreements resolved by consensus. Inter-rater reliability and index-reference agreement were quantified using kappa statistics.
findingsThe Toolkit identified 73 child-suicide PFD reports between July 2013 and November 2023, compared with 37 identified in the ONS review. 62 cases fell within the ONS analytical window, and 11 pre-dated the introduction of suicide-related tags on the PFD archive. Pre-consensus inter-rater reliability among clinicians was substantial to almost perfect (Fleiss' κ=0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.84). Post-consensus agreement between the Toolkit and the clinical reference standard was substantial to almost perfect (Cohen's κ=0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.00; raw agreement 97%). End-to-end screening, coding and tabulation of all reports completed in 5 min 29 s on a consumer-grade laptop.
conclusionsA national thematic review of child-suicide PFD reports can be fully automated with high concordance to expert judgement, dramatically reducing time and labour while recovering previously missed cases. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Automated analysis of PFD reports enables rapid, reproducible surveillance of recurring system failures, supporting more timely public health intelligence, policy responses and learning from coronial 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.