Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Bayesian Hierarchical Factor Regression Models to Infer Cause of Death From Verbal Autopsy Data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read FARVA, a hierarchical factor regression for verbal autopsy symptoms, models both symptom means and symptom correlations as functions of cause and covariates, and the paper reports that it improves cause-of-death prediction over existing…

desk verdict FARVA is a genuinely useful extension of Bayesian factor models for verbal autopsy, but the PHMRC validation gives FARVA a covariate the competitors lack and truncates the cause set, so the headline superiority claim needs a cleaner comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07632 v2 pith:GRR4TN2R submitted 2019-08-20 stat.AP

Kelly R. Moran , Elizabeth L. Turner , David Dunson , Amy H. Herring This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.AP
keywords verbalautopsycauseofdeathfactoranalysiscovarianceregressionBayesianhierarchicalmodelcause-specificmortalityfractionsemi-supervisedclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a verbal autopsy (VA) reader can do better at inferring cause of death if it models not only how often each symptom appears for a given cause, but also how symptoms hang together, and how both patterns shift with decedent characteristics such as age. It proposes FARVA, a Bayesian hierarchical factor regression model in which the reported symptoms are treated as noisy observations of a low-dimensional latent syndromic state whose mean and covariance are allowed to vary by cause and by covariates. FARVA shares information across causes through hierarchical priors, which matters because some causes are rare in training data, and it accepts binary, count, and continuous questionnaire items in one model. The paper validates the model in simulations and on real gold-standard verbal autopsy data, where it reports better top-cause accuracy and cause-specific mortality fraction accuracy than competing algorithms. If this holds, public health programs in low-resource settings could get more reliable cause-of-death statistics and individual cause assignments from interview data alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hierarchical factor regression for the latent symptom vector $z_i$: $z_i = \Lambda_{c[i]}(x_i)\eta_i + \epsilon_i$, with $\eta_i \sim \mathcal{N}(\psi_{c[i]}(x_i), I_K)$, $\epsilon_i \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \Sigma_0)$, and $\Lambda_{c[i]}(x_i) = \Theta_{c[i]}\xi_{c[i]}(x_i)$. The latent factors $\eta_i$ stand for unobserved syndromes that produce multiple correlated symptoms; after marginalizing them out, the symptom covariance is $\Lambda_{c[i]}(x_i)\Lambda_{c[i]}(x_i)' + \Sigma_0$, a low-rank factor-plus-noise form. The decomposition of the loadings into a cause-level coefficient matrix $\Theta$ and a covariate-dependent basis $\xi(x)$ is what makes the covariance itself a regression on covariates without estimating $P(P+1)/2$ parameters per cause, and the hierarchical shrinkage priors are what let rare causes borrow information from common ones.

What would settle it

Generate verbal-autopsy-like data with a full-rank, non-low-rank symptom covariance for at least one cause, so that many latent factors are needed; if FARVA's top-cause accuracy and CSMF accuracy on held-out data then fail to beat conditional-independence baselines, or if its posterior predictive intervals for pairwise symptom associations exclude the true values, the paper's central claim would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for verbal autopsy data, the distribution of symptoms conditional on cause should be modeled through a latent continuous vector $z_i$ rather than through independent symptom probabilities. FARVA specifies $$z_i \mid y_i = c \sim \mathcal{N}(\Lambda_c(x_i)\psi_c(x_i),\, \Lambda_c(x_i)\Lambda_c(x_i)' + \Sigma_0),$$ with link functions $f_j(z_{ij})$ mapping each latent coordinate to the observed binary, count, or continuous symptom $s_{ij}$, and with a covariate-dependent low-rank loading matrix $\Lambda_c(x_i) = \Theta_c \xi_c(x_i)$. This makes both the mean symptom pattern and the covariance between symptoms depend on cause and covariates, and the hierarchical shrinkage priors on $\Theta_c$ and $\xi_c$ borrow strength across causes. The paper claims that on six-site gold-standard verbal autopsy data and in simulations, this structure yields better top-cause accuracy and cause-specific mortality fraction accuracy than existing verbal autopsy algorithms, especially when symptom prevalence or symptom association varies with covariates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, after symptom-type links, the latent symptom vector for a given cause and covariate value is Gaussian with a low-rank factor-plus-noise covariance; if real symptom dependencies are not close to this form, the claimed predictive gains are not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Verbal autopsy algorithms can productively use decedent covariates like age: the same symptom can signal different causes in different age groups, and FARVA captures that directly.
  • Cause-specific symptom co-occurrence carries information for cause assignment; when causes differ mainly in covariance rather than symptom prevalence, FARVA outperforms chance while conditional-independence methods do not.
  • Hierarchical sharing across causes should make predictions for rare causes more stable, because their estimated symptom patterns shrink toward a population-level pattern learned from all causes.
  • Because the model accepts binary, count, and continuous items together, richer verbal autopsy questionnaires can be fed into one analysis rather than being reduced to binary indicators.
  • Users can obtain a posterior distribution over cause-specific mortality fractions, not just a point prediction, enabling uncertainty-aware burden-of-disease estimates.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension, which the paper only gestures at, is to include site-level or seasonal covariates in the same covariance-regression machinery to reduce the accuracy loss when a verbal autopsy algorithm is moved from one setting to another.
  • The effective number of latent factors per cause could be used as a deployment diagnostic: causes requiring many factors would be flagged as poorly approximated by the low-rank assumption, signaling that their predictions should be treated as less reliable.
  • The learned cause-specific factor loadings could be mined to identify which symptom pairs are most discriminative for each cause, potentially guiding shorter future questionnaires; the paper discusses symptom sparsity as future work but does not develop this use.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes FARVA, a Bayesian hierarchical factor regression model for verbal autopsy data. The model embeds each observed symptom vector s_i through a latent continuous vector z_i, with a cause- and covariate-dependent factor structure: z_i has mean Λ_{c[i]}(x_i)ψ_{c[i]}(x_i) and covariance Λ_{c[i]}(x_i)Λ_{c[i]}(x_i)' + Σ_0. The factor loadings and factor means are modeled hierarchically across causes and can depend on covariates through basis functions, and sparsity is induced via multiplicative gamma shrinkage. The authors develop a Gibbs sampler, validate the model in a set of simulation experiments designed to separate mean, covariance, and covariate effects, and evaluate predictive performance on site-wise splits of the PHMRC adult data against the Bayesian factor model, InSilicoVA, naive Bayes, and Tariff. The paper reports improved top-cause accuracy and CSMF accuracy for FARVA and also presents exploratory inference on symptom-level means and covariances.

Significance. If the predictive claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: it relaxes conditional-independence assumptions in verbal autopsy modeling, allows both symptom prevalence and symptom association to vary with covariates, and provides open-source code and a user manual, which are important for adoption. The simulation study is extensive, and the PHMRC validation is a standard and valuable test bed. The main strengths are the clearly specified hierarchical model, the reproducible implementation, and the explicit treatment of covariance structure. However, the central comparative claim is undermined by two features of the PHMRC evaluation: the possible-cause set is truncated when causes are absent from a training split, and FARVA is the only method given the age covariate. The abstract's phrase 'improved goodness-of-fit' is also not supported by the reported predictive metrics. These issues are fixable, but they need to be addressed before the paper's headline claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4, PHMRC evaluation protocol] The sentence 'Only the subset of causes included in the training data set were included as possible causes in each analysis' is load-bearing for the central predictive claim. In small or unbalanced sites, rare causes will be absent from many 75% training splits, and test deaths from those causes are then removed from the possible-cause set. The reported ACC1 and ACC_CSMF values are therefore accuracy on a split-specific subset of the 34 adult causes, not on the full PHMRC cause space, and the magnitude of FARVA's advantage over the competitors could depend substantially on this truncation. Please rerun the evaluation with the full cause set, or with causes absent from training assigned to an explicit residual category, and report how often and for which causes this truncation occurs at each site. At minimum, the claims should be explicitly restricted to the evaluated cause subset.
  2. [Section 2.4, covariate comparison] FARVA is the only method given the binary elder covariate (age ≥ 65), while the competing methods are run on symptom data only. This simultaneously varies the model and the input feature set, so the observed improvement in ACC1 and ACC_CSMF cannot be cleanly attributed to the FARVA model itself. The age covariate may carry substantial cause information, particularly for adult deaths. Please add an ablation in which FARVA is run without the age covariate, or give the competing methods the same covariate (for example, as an additional symptom), and report the resulting differences. This is necessary to support the stated model-level superiority.
  3. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract claims 'improved goodness-of-fit' for FARVA on real VA data, but the paper reports only predictive accuracy metrics (ACC1 and ACC_CSMF) on held-out data. No posterior predictive checks, log-likelihood comparisons, or other fit diagnostics are presented. The abstract and the discussion should either replace 'goodness-of-fit' with 'predictive performance' or add a formal goodness-of-fit assessment if the authors wish to retain that claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2.3] The text says that if symptom means are not well captured by the low-rank structure, 'it is preferable to simply use a separate mean vector as discussed in Section 2.2.3,' but the referenced discussion does not appear in Section 2.2.3; the alternative mean parameterization is described in Section 2.2.2. The cross-reference should be fixed.
  2. [Figures 5 and 6] The PHMRC results are summarized only with jittered point clouds and a mean/median marker. Reporting the numerical mean and standard deviation for each site and method in a table, or at least in the caption, would make the size of the improvements easier to assess.
  3. [Section 3.1.2] The covariate-dependent simulations e through g are constructed so that only FARVA can exploit the covariate structure, so FARVA's superior performance in those simulations is partly built in by design. This is appropriate for illustrating mechanism, but the text should state more explicitly that these results demonstrate capability rather than comparative advantage in a neutral setting.
  4. [Section 2.2.2] Equation (4) writes the noise distribution as N(0P, Σ0); the notation is understandable, but using the more conventional N(0_P, Σ_0) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FARVA's central predictive claims rest on held-out PHMRC test data and explicit modeling assumptions, not on fitting the target result or on a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical performance comparison on held-out PHMRC data, with 100 train/test splits per site and accuracy metrics computed on test observations. The predictive quantity is not a reparameterization of a fitted input; the model is trained on one subset and evaluated on another. The FARVA model's factor-regression structure is explicitly stated as an assumption in Section 2.2.2 and its limitations are acknowledged in Section 2.2.3, rather than being derived from the target result. The use of prior work by Fox and Dunson, Bhattacharya and Dunson, and Durante is standard methodological borrowing, not a load-bearing self-citation that forces the conclusion: those components are general tools and are not equivalent to the claim that FARVA improves COD or CSMF accuracy. The covariate simulations e-g are constructed so that FARVA is the only method given the covariate information, so its advantage in those simulations is by design in the sense that the experiment targets the method's intended capability; this is a deliberate validation strategy rather than a circular derivation, and the no-covariate simulations a-d show FARVA performing comparably to competitors. The PHMRC evaluation protocol does restrict the possible-cause set to causes present in each training split and gives FARVA an age covariate not given to competitors; these are legitimate threats to the strength of the empirical comparison, but they are evaluation-design concerns, not instances of a claimed derivation reducing to its own inputs. No equation in the paper defines a predicted quantity in terms of the fitted target, and no uniqueness or external-support claim is imported from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained in the relevant sense, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model leans on standard Bayesian machinery plus a specific low-rank Gaussian factor assumption. The free parameters are mostly hyperparameters not reported in the main text, leaving some ambiguity for reproduction. The latent variables η and z are internal modeling constructs, not empirically confirmed entities.

free parameters (6)
  • K (upper bound on number of latent factors)
    Truncation bound for the factor model; must be set large enough to avoid underfitting. Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.
  • L (maximum basis size)
    Upper bound on columns of the coefficient matrix Θ; a conservative value is needed for the shrinkage prior to work. Equation (6).
  • Multiplicative gamma hyperparameters d1, d2
    Control column shrinkage of factor loadings; d2 > 1 is required for increasing shrinkage. Values not given in the main text.
  • Gamma hyperparameter γ for local precisions
    Controls local shrinkage in the Bhattacharya-Dunson prior; value not given in the main text.
  • Dirichlet prior concentration a_c = a_c < 1 (equal across causes)
    Sparse prior over cause proportions; chosen to match expected sparsity of CSMF in real settings. Equation (2).
  • Normal/inverse-Wishart hyperparameters for β and α
    µ0, Λ0, ν0, S0, A0, L0, v0, D0 for the hierarchical covariate regression priors; not specified in the main text.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Verbal autopsy symptom reports contain reliable signal about underlying cause of death.
    The entire supervised training setup requires that next-of-kin reports are informative; assumed in the Introduction.
  • domain assumption PHMRC gold-standard cause labels are correct.
    Used as ground truth for training and evaluation in Section 2.4; label errors are not modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper Latent symptom vector z_i given cause and covariates is Gaussian with mean Λψ and covariance ΛΛ' + Σ0.
    Equations (4)-(5); this is the core distributional assumption of FARVA and is not derived from data.
  • standard math The multiplicative gamma shrinkage prior (Bhattacharya and Dunson 2011, as modified by Durante 2017) effectively truncates the number of factors.
    Used to keep K finite and identifiable; equation (7) relies on this prior's shrinkage properties.
  • domain assumption The population CSMF is sparse, so a Dirichlet prior with a_c < 1 is appropriate.
    Equation (2); the authors state this assumption is likely valid in real applications, but it can bias estimates if CSMF is uniform.
  • domain assumption Link functions f_j (probit threshold for binary, rounding for counts) preserve the factor structure of the latent Gaussian model.
    Equation (3); assumes the latent Gaussian representation is adequate after transformation to observed symptoms.
invented entities (2)
  • Latent factor vector η_i
    purpose: Induces dependence among symptoms given cause and covariates through the factor loading matrix; acts as a low-dimensional representation of syndromic state.
    Unobserved latent variable; no direct falsifiable handle outside the model, although the model's covariance predictions can be checked.
  • Latent continuous symptom vector z_i
    purpose: Linking observed discrete symptoms to the Gaussian factor model via link functions f_j.
    Unobserved; its existence is a modeling device, not empirically verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian Hierarchical Factor Regression Models to Infer Cause of Death From Verbal Autopsy Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GRR4TN2R

@misc{pith2026190807632,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian Hierarchical Factor Regression Models to Infer Cause of Death From Verbal Autopsy Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GRR4TN2R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07632}
}
read the original abstract

In low-resource settings where vital registration of death is not routine it is often of critical interest to determine and study the cause of death (COD) for individuals and the cause-specific mortality fraction (CSMF) for populations. Post-mortem autopsies, considered the gold standard for COD assignment, are often difficult or impossible to implement due to deaths occurring outside the hospital, expense, and/or cultural norms. For this reason, Verbal Autopsies (VAs) are commonly conducted, consisting of a questionnaire administered to next of kin recording demographic information, known medical conditions, symptoms, and other factors for the decedent. This article proposes a novel class of hierarchical factor regression models that avoid restrictive assumptions of standard methods, allow both the mean and covariance to vary with COD category, and can include covariate information on the decedent, region, or events surrounding death. Taking a Bayesian approach to inference, this work develops an MCMC algorithm and validates the FActor Regression for Verbal Autopsy (FARVA) model in simulation experiments. An application of FARVA to real VA data shows improved goodness-of-fit and better predictive performance in inferring COD and CSMF over competing methods. Code and a user manual are made available at https://github.com/kelrenmor/farva.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07632 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Number of deaths due to each of the 34 broad cause groupings in the adult PHMRC data set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The average proportion of symptoms present varies across both age and cause of death (COD) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The association between symptoms varies across both age and cause of death (COD). Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Graphical representation of the FARVA model. Nodes shaded in gray are data (observed), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top cause accuracy for PHMRC data over 100 test/train splits at each site. The centered solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CSMF accuracy for PHMRC data over 100 test/train splits at each site. The centered solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Violin plot visualizing samples of E[zc[i],j ] for CODs cirrhosis (n = 313), homicide (n = 167), and pneumonia (n = 540) for select symptoms. An expected latent symptom mean being positive (negative) corresponds to more (less) expected observed “Yes” responses for thos…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Violin plot of posterior draws of E[zc[i],j ] for CODs cirrhosis (n≥65 = 49, n<65 = 260), homicide (n≥65 = 5, n<65 = 161), and pneumonia (n≥65 = 193, n<65 = 341) for select symptoms. leading to a specific diagnosis. The latent mean E[zc[i],j ] is significantly greater …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Posterior mean and lower/upper 95% credible interval of Cov( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sparse Bayesian infinite factor models

    A Bhattacharya and D B Dunson. Sparse Bayesian infinite factor models. Biometrika, 98 0 (2): 0 291--306, 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Strengthening standardised interpretation of verbal autopsy data: the new InterVA-4 tool

    Peter Byass, Daniel Chandramohan, Samuel J Clark, Lucia D'ambruoso, Edward Fottrell, Wendy J Graham, Abraham J Herbst, Abraham Hodgson, Sennen Hounton, Kathleen Kahn, et al. Strengthening standardised interpretation of verbal autopsy data: the new InterVA-4 tool. Global Health Action, 5 0 (1): 0 19281, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Nonparametric Bayes modelling of count processes

    Antonio Canale and David B Dunson. Nonparametric Bayes modelling of count processes. Biometrika, 100 0 (4): 0 801--816, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Quantifying the contributions of training data and algorithm logic to the performance of automated cause-assignment algorithms for verbal autopsy

    Samuel J Clark, Zehang Li, and Tyler H McCormick. Quantifying the contributions of training data and algorithm logic to the performance of automated cause-assignment algorithms for verbal autopsy. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07141, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Etiology of severe non-malaria febrile illness in northern tanzania: A prospective cohort study

    John A Crump, Anne B Morrissey, William L Nicholson, Robert F Massung, Robyn A Stoddard, Renee L Galloway, Eng Eong Ooi, Venance P Maro, Wilbrod Saganda, Grace D Kinabo, et al. Etiology of severe non-malaria febrile illness in northern tanzania: A prospective cohort study. PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 7 0 (7): 0 e2324, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Regularized Bayesian transfer learning for population level etiological distributions

    Abhirup Datta, Jacob Fiksel, Agbessi Amouzou, and Scott Zeger. Local calibration of verbal autopsy algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.10572, 2018

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    A note on the multiplicative gamma process

    Daniele Durante. A note on the multiplicative gamma process. Statistics & Probability Letters, 122: 0 198--204, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Bayesian nonparametric covariance regression

    Emily B Fox and David B Dunson. Bayesian nonparametric covariance regression. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16 0 (1): 0 2501--2542, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Geneva: World Health Organization, 2017

    Manual for the training of interviewers on the use of the 2016 WHO VA instrument . Geneva: World Health Organization, 2017. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO

    2016

  2. [10]

    Global burden of disease study 2016 ( GBD 2016) results

    Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network . Global burden of disease study 2016 ( GBD 2016) results. http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool, 2017

    2016

  3. [11]

    Performance of the Tariff Method : validation of a simple additive algorithm for analysis of verbal autopsies

    Spencer L James, Abraham D Flaxman, and Christopher JL Murray. Performance of the Tariff Method : validation of a simple additive algorithm for analysis of verbal autopsies. Population Health Metrics, 9 0 (1): 0 31, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Verbal autopsy methods with multiple causes of death

    Gary King, Ying Lu, et al. Verbal autopsy methods with multiple causes of death. Statistical Science, 23 0 (1): 0 78--91, 2008

    2008

  5. [13]

    Bayesian factor models for probabilistic cause of death assessment with verbal autopsies

    Tsuyoshi Kunihama, Zehang Richard Li, Samuel J Clark, and Tyler H McCormick. Bayesian factor models for probabilistic cause of death assessment with verbal autopsies. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.01327, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bayesian joint spike-and-slab graphical lasso

    Zehang Richard Li, Tyler H McCormick, and Samuel J Clark. Bayesian joint spike-and-slab graphical lasso. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.07051, 2018 a

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Using Bayesian latent Gaussian graphical models to infer symptom associations in verbal autopsies

    Zehang Richard Li, Tyler H McCormick, and Samuel J Clark. Using Bayesian latent Gaussian graphical models to infer symptom associations in verbal autopsies. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.00877, 2018 b

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Probabilistic cause-of-death assignment using verbal autopsies

    Tyler H McCormick, Zehang Richard Li, Clara Calvert, Amelia C Crampin, Kathleen Kahn, and Samuel J Clark. Probabilistic cause-of-death assignment using verbal autopsies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 111 0 (515): 0 1036--1049, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Naive Bayes classifiers for verbal autopsies: comparison to physician-based classification for 21,000 child and adult deaths

    Pierre Miasnikof, Vasily Giannakeas, Mireille Gomes, Lukasz Aleksandrowicz, Alexander Y Shestopaloff, Dewan Alam, Stephen Tollman, Akram Samarikhalaj, and Prabhat Jha. Naive Bayes classifiers for verbal autopsies: comparison to physician-based classification for 21,000 child a...

    2015

  10. [18]

    Simplified Symptom Pattern Method for verbal autopsy analysis: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards

    Christopher JL Murray, Spencer L James, Jeanette K Birnbaum, Michael K Freeman, Rafael Lozano, and Alan D Lopez. Simplified Symptom Pattern Method for verbal autopsy analysis: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards. Population Health Metrics, 9 0 (...

    2011

  11. [19]

    Population health metrics research consortium gold standard verbal autopsy validation study: design, implementation, and development of analysis datasets

    Christopher JL Murray, Alan D Lopez, Robert Black, Ramesh Ahuja, Said Mohd Ali, Abdullah Baqui, Lalit Dandona, Emily Dantzer, Vinita Das, Usha Dhingra, et al. Population health metrics research consortium gold standard verbal autopsy validation study: design, implementation, a...

    2011

  12. [20]

    Robust metrics for assessing the performance of different verbal autopsy cause assignment methods in validation studies

    Christopher JL Murray, Rafael Lozano, Abraham D Flaxman, Alireza Vahdatpour, and Alan D Lopez. Robust metrics for assessing the performance of different verbal autopsy cause assignment methods in validation studies. Population Health Metrics, 9 0 (1): 0 28, 2011 c

    2011

  13. [21]

    Using verbal autopsy to measure causes of death: the comparative performance of existing methods

    Christopher JL Murray, Rafael Lozano, Abraham D Flaxman, Peter Serina, David Phillips, Andrea Stewart, Spencer L James, Alireza Vahdatpour, Charles Atkinson, Michael K Freeman, et al. Using verbal autopsy to measure causes of death: the comparative performance of existing meth...

    2014

  14. [22]

    The who 2016 verbal autopsy instrument: An international standard suitable for automated analysis by interva, insilicova, and tariff 2.0

    Erin K Nichols, Peter Byass, Daniel Chandramohan, Samuel J Clark, Abraham D Flaxman, Robert Jakob, Jordana Leitao, Nicolas Maire, Chalapati Rao, Ian Riley, et al. The who 2016 verbal autopsy instrument: An international standard suitable for automated analysis by interva, insi...

    2016

  15. [23]

    Burden of disease

    Max Roser and Hannah Ritchie. Burden of disease. Our World in Data, 2018. https://ourworldindata.org/burden-of-disease

    2018

  16. [24]

    Improving performance of the tariff method for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies

    Peter Serina, Ian Riley, Andrea Stewart, Spencer L James, Abraham D Flaxman, Rafael Lozano, Bernardo Hernandez, Meghan D Mooney, Richard Luning, Robert Black, et al. Improving performance of the tariff method for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies. BMC medicine, 13 ...

    2015

  17. [25]

    Testing homogeneity of stratum effects in stratified paired binary data

    Yan D Zhao, Dewi Rahardja, De-Hui Wang, and Haili Shen. Testing homogeneity of stratum effects in stratified paired binary data. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 24 0 (3): 0 600--607, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  19. [27]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.senten...

  20. [28]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  21. [29]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.