ArticleBMJ global health2026
Country-specific estimates of misclassification rates of computer-coded verbal autopsy algorithms.
Article in BMJ global health, 2026. 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.
- Systematic estimates of global causes of neonatal and under 5 mortality in 2000-24: secondary data analysis using bayesian multinomial logistic regression.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionComputer-coded verbal autopsy (CCVA) algorithms are routinely used to determine individual cause of death (COD) and derive population-level estimates of cause-specific mortality fractions (CSMFs). But frequent COD misclassification leads to biased CSMF estimates. The VA-calibration framework reduces the bias by estimating misclassification rates; but it overlooks systematic patterns and cross-country variation, reducing the accuracy of CSMF estimates.
methodsUsing CHAMPS (Child Health and Mortality Prevention Surveillance) data and the framework in Pramanik
resultsWe report three key findings. First, the country-specific model better fits CHAMPS misclassification rates than the homogeneous model, reducing average absolute loss by 34%-38% for neonates and 13%-24% for children. Second, CCVA algorithms show consistent misclassification patterns, systematically overestimating or underestimating certain causes. Third, calibrating COMSA data increases neonatal CSMF for sepsis/meningitis/infection and decreases it for intrapartum-related events and prematurity; among children, CSMF increases for malaria and decreases for pneumonia.
conclusionsWe present an inventory of VA misclassification rate estimates across two age groups, three CCVA algorithms and eight countries. These publicly available estimates enable the calibration of VA-only data from any country without needing access to CHAMPS data. More generally, these analyses reveal systematic algorithmic biases and highlight opportunities to refine future CCVA algorithms. As reliance on computer-coded and AI-driven approaches to COD determination grows, our integrated VA-calibration workflow, grounded in robust statistical frameworks and open-source software (misclassification matrix modeling, VA-calibration R package on GitHub and CRAN), offers a critical step towards improving the accuracy of mortality surveillance.
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.