Dataset Information

BAYESIAN FACTOR MODELS FOR PROBABILISTIC CAUSE OF DEATH ASSESSMENT WITH VERBAL AUTOPSIES.

ABSTRACT: The distribution of deaths by cause provides crucial information for public health planning, response and evaluation. About 60% of deaths globally are not registered or given a cause, limiting our ability to understand disease epidemiology. Verbal autopsy (VA) surveys are increasingly used in such settings to collect information on the signs, symptoms and medical history of people who have recently died. This article develops a novel Bayesian method for estimation of population distributions of deaths by cause using verbal autopsy data. The proposed approach is based on a multivariate probit model where associations among items in questionnaires are flexibly induced by latent factors. Using the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium labeled data that include both VA and medically certified causes of death, we assess performance of the proposed method. Further, we estimate important questionnaire items that are highly associated with causes of death. This framework provides insights that will simplify future data.

SUBMITTER: Kunihama T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7845920 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

BAYESIAN FACTOR MODELS FOR PROBABILISTIC CAUSE OF DEATH ASSESSMENT WITH VERBAL AUTOPSIES.

Kunihama Tsuyoshi T Li Zehang Richard ZR Clark Samuel J SJ McCormick Tyler H TH

The annals of applied statistics 20200301 1

The distribution of deaths by cause provides crucial information for public health planning, response and evaluation. About 60% of deaths globally are not registered or given a cause, limiting our ability to understand disease epidemiology. Verbal autopsy (VA) surveys are increasingly used in such settings to collect information on the signs, symptoms and medical history of people who have recently died. This article develops a novel Bayesian method for estimation of population distributions of ...[more]

PMID: 33520049

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Indian Sample Registration System (SRS) with verbal autopsy methods provides estimations of cause specific mortality for maternal deaths, where the majority of deaths occur at home, unregistered. We aim to examine factors that influence physician agreement and coding choices in assigning causes of death from verbal autopsies.Methodology/principal findingsAmong adult deaths identified in the SRS, pregnancy-related deaths recorded in 2001-2003 were assigned ICD-10 codes by two independent physicians. Inter-rater reliability was estimated using Landis Koch Kappa classification ?0.4--poor to fair agreement; >0.4 ?0.6--moderate agreement; >0.6 ?0.8--substantial agreement; >8--high agreement. We identified factors associated with physician agreement using multivariate logistic regression. A central consensus panel reviewed cases for errors and reclassified as needed based on 2011 ICD-10 coding guidelines. Of 1130 pregnancy-related deaths, 1040 were assigned ICD-10 codes by two physicians. We found substantial agreement regardless of the woman's residence, whether the death was registered, religion, respondent's or deceased's education, age, hospital admission or gestational age. Physician agreement was not influenced by the above variables, with the exception of greater agreement in cases where the respondent did not live with the deceased, or early gestational age at the time of death. A central consensus panel reviewed all cases and recoded 10% of cases due to insufficient use of information in the verbal autopsy by the coding physicians and rationale for this reclassification are discussed.ConclusionIn the absence of complete vital registration and universal healthcare services, physician coded verbal autopsies continues to be heavily relied upon to ascertain pregnancy-related death. From this study, two independent physicians had good inter-rater reliability for assigning pregnancy-related causes of death in a nationally-represented sample, and physician coding does not appear to be heavily influenced by case characteristics or demographics.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Verbal autopsies with physician assignment of cause of death (COD) are commonly used in settings where medical certification of deaths is uncommon. It remains unanswered if automated algorithms can replace physician assignment. METHODS:We randomized verbal autopsy interviews for deaths in 117 villages in rural India to either physician or automated COD assignment. Twenty-four trained lay (non-medical) surveyors applied the allocated method using a laptop-based electronic system. Two of 25 physicians were allocated randomly to independently code the deaths in the physician assignment arm. Six algorithms (Naïve Bayes Classifier (NBC), King-Lu, InSilicoVA, InSilicoVA-NT, InterVA-4, and SmartVA) coded each death in the automated arm. The primary outcome was concordance with the COD distribution in the standard physician-assigned arm. Four thousand six hundred fifty-one (4651) deaths were allocated to physician (standard), and 4723 to automated arms. RESULTS:The two arms were nearly identical in demographics and key symptom patterns. The average concordances of automated algorithms with the standard were 62%, 56%, and 59% for adult, child, and neonatal deaths, respectively. Automated algorithms showed inconsistent results, even for causes that are relatively easy to identify such as road traffic injuries. Automated algorithms underestimated the number of cancer and suicide deaths in adults and overestimated other injuries in adults and children. Across all ages, average weighted concordance with the standard was 62% (range 79-45%) with the best to worst ranking automated algorithms being InterVA-4, InSilicoVA-NT, InSilicoVA, SmartVA, NBC, and King-Lu. Individual-level sensitivity for causes of adult deaths in the automated arm was low between the algorithms but high between two independent physicians in the physician arm. CONCLUSIONS:While desirable, automated algorithms require further development and rigorous evaluation. Lay reporting of deaths paired with physician COD assignment of verbal autopsies, despite some limitations, remains a practicable method to document the patterns of mortality reliably for unattended deaths. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02810366. Submitted on 11 April 2016.

Project description:BackgroundVerbal autopsy (VA) is used to estimate the causes of death in areas with incomplete vital registration systems. The King and Lu method (KL) for direct estimation of cause-specific mortality fractions (CSMFs) from VA studies is an analysis technique that estimates CSMFs in a population without predicting individual-level cause of death as an intermediate step. In previous studies, KL has shown promise as an alternative to physician-certified verbal autopsy (PCVA). However, it has previously been impossible to validate KL with a large dataset of VAs for which the underlying cause of death is known to meet rigorous clinical diagnostic criteria.MethodsWe applied the KL method to adult, child, and neonatal VA datasets from the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium gold standard verbal autopsy validation study, a multisite sample of 12,542 VAs where gold standard cause of death was established using strict clinical diagnostic criteria. To emulate real-world populations with varying CSMFs, we evaluated the KL estimations for 500 different test datasets of varying cause distribution. We assessed the quality of these estimates in terms of CSMF accuracy as well as linear regression and compared this with the results of PCVA.ResultsKL performance is similar to PCVA in terms of CSMF accuracy, attaining values of 0.669, 0.698, and 0.795 for adult, child, and neonatal age groups, respectively, when health care experience (HCE) items were included. We found that the length of the cause list has a dramatic effect on KL estimation quality, with CSMF accuracy decreasing substantially as the length of the cause list increases. We found that KL is not reliant on HCE the way PCVA is, and without HCE, KL outperforms PCVA for all age groups.ConclusionsLike all computer methods for VA analysis, KL is faster and cheaper than PCVA. Since it is a direct estimation technique, though, it does not produce individual-level predictions. KL estimates are of similar quality to PCVA and slightly better in most cases. Compared to other recently developed methods, however, KL would only be the preferred technique when the cause list is short and individual-level predictions are not needed.

Project description:BackgroundInterVA is a widely disseminated tool for cause of death attribution using information from verbal autopsies. Several studies have attempted to validate the concordance and accuracy of the tool, but the main limitation of these studies is that they compare cause of death as ascertained through hospital record review or hospital discharge diagnosis with the results of InterVA. This study provides a unique opportunity to assess the performance of InterVA compared to physician-certified verbal autopsies (PCVA) and alternative automated methods for analysis.MethodsUsing clinical diagnostic gold standards to select 12,542 verbal autopsy cases, we assessed the performance of InterVA on both an individual and population level and compared the results to PCVA, conducting analyses separately for adults, children, and neonates. Following the recommendation of Murray et al., we randomly varied the cause composition over 500 test datasets to understand the performance of the tool in different settings. We also contrasted InterVA with an alternative Bayesian method, Simplified Symptom Pattern (SSP), to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the tool.ResultsAcross all age groups, InterVA performs worse than PCVA, both on an individual and population level. On an individual level, InterVA achieved a chance-corrected concordance of 24.2% for adults, 24.9% for children, and 6.3% for neonates (excluding free text, considering one cause selection). On a population level, InterVA achieved a cause-specific mortality fraction accuracy of 0.546 for adults, 0.504 for children, and 0.404 for neonates. The comparison to SSP revealed four specific characteristics that lead to superior performance of SSP. Increases in chance-corrected concordance are attained by developing cause-by-cause models (2%), using all items as opposed to only the ones that mapped to InterVA items (7%), assigning probabilities to clusters of symptoms (6%), and using empirical as opposed to expert probabilities (up to 8%).ConclusionsGiven the widespread use of verbal autopsy for understanding the burden of disease and for setting health intervention priorities in areas that lack reliable vital registrations systems, accurate analysis of verbal autopsies is essential. While InterVA is an affordable and available mechanism for assigning causes of death using verbal autopsies, users should be aware of its suboptimal performance relative to other methods.

Dataset Information

BAYESIAN FACTOR MODELS FOR PROBABILISTIC CAUSE OF DEATH ASSESSMENT WITH VERBAL AUTOPSIES.

Publications

BAYESIAN FACTOR MODELS FOR PROBABILISTIC CAUSE OF DEATH ASSESSMENT WITH VERBAL AUTOPSIES.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets