Cargando…
Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards
BACKGROUND: Recently, a new algorithm for automatic computer certification of verbal autopsy data named InSilicoVA was published. The authors presented their algorithm as a statistical method and assessed its performance using a single set of model predictors and one age group. METHODS: We perform a...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5907465/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29669548 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1039-1 |
_version_ | 1783315539228098560 |
---|---|
author | Flaxman, Abraham D. Joseph, Jonathan C. Murray, Christopher J. L. Riley, Ian Douglas Lopez, Alan D. |
author_facet | Flaxman, Abraham D. Joseph, Jonathan C. Murray, Christopher J. L. Riley, Ian Douglas Lopez, Alan D. |
author_sort | Flaxman, Abraham D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Recently, a new algorithm for automatic computer certification of verbal autopsy data named InSilicoVA was published. The authors presented their algorithm as a statistical method and assessed its performance using a single set of model predictors and one age group. METHODS: We perform a standard procedure for analyzing the predictive accuracy of verbal autopsy classification methods using the same data and the publicly available implementation of the algorithm released by the authors. We extend the original analysis to include children and neonates, instead of only adults, and test accuracy using different sets of predictors, including the set used in the original paper and a set that matches the released software. RESULTS: The population-level performance (i.e., predictive accuracy) of the algorithm varied from 2.1 to 37.6% when trained on data preprocessed similarly as in the original study. When trained on data that matched the software default format, the performance ranged from −11.5 to 17.5%. When using the default training data provided, the performance ranged from −59.4 to −38.5%. Overall, the InSilicoVA predictive accuracy was found to be 11.6–8.2 percentage points lower than that of an alternative algorithm. Additionally, the sensitivity for InSilicoVA was consistently lower than that for an alternative diagnostic algorithm (Tariff 2.0), although the specificity was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: The default format and training data provided by the software lead to results that are at best suboptimal, with poor cause-of-death predictive performance. This method is likely to generate erroneous cause of death predictions and, even if properly configured, is not as accurate as alternative automated diagnostic methods. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1039-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5907465 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59074652018-04-30 Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards Flaxman, Abraham D. Joseph, Jonathan C. Murray, Christopher J. L. Riley, Ian Douglas Lopez, Alan D. BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Recently, a new algorithm for automatic computer certification of verbal autopsy data named InSilicoVA was published. The authors presented their algorithm as a statistical method and assessed its performance using a single set of model predictors and one age group. METHODS: We perform a standard procedure for analyzing the predictive accuracy of verbal autopsy classification methods using the same data and the publicly available implementation of the algorithm released by the authors. We extend the original analysis to include children and neonates, instead of only adults, and test accuracy using different sets of predictors, including the set used in the original paper and a set that matches the released software. RESULTS: The population-level performance (i.e., predictive accuracy) of the algorithm varied from 2.1 to 37.6% when trained on data preprocessed similarly as in the original study. When trained on data that matched the software default format, the performance ranged from −11.5 to 17.5%. When using the default training data provided, the performance ranged from −59.4 to −38.5%. Overall, the InSilicoVA predictive accuracy was found to be 11.6–8.2 percentage points lower than that of an alternative algorithm. Additionally, the sensitivity for InSilicoVA was consistently lower than that for an alternative diagnostic algorithm (Tariff 2.0), although the specificity was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: The default format and training data provided by the software lead to results that are at best suboptimal, with poor cause-of-death predictive performance. This method is likely to generate erroneous cause of death predictions and, even if properly configured, is not as accurate as alternative automated diagnostic methods. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1039-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5907465/ /pubmed/29669548 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1039-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Flaxman, Abraham D. Joseph, Jonathan C. Murray, Christopher J. L. Riley, Ian Douglas Lopez, Alan D. Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards |
title | Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards |
title_full | Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards |
title_fullStr | Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards |
title_full_unstemmed | Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards |
title_short | Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards |
title_sort | performance of insilicova for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5907465/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29669548 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1039-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT flaxmanabrahamd performanceofinsilicovaforassigningcausesofdeathtoverbalautopsiesmultisitevalidationstudyusingclinicaldiagnosticgoldstandards AT josephjonathanc performanceofinsilicovaforassigningcausesofdeathtoverbalautopsiesmultisitevalidationstudyusingclinicaldiagnosticgoldstandards AT murraychristopherjl performanceofinsilicovaforassigningcausesofdeathtoverbalautopsiesmultisitevalidationstudyusingclinicaldiagnosticgoldstandards AT rileyiandouglas performanceofinsilicovaforassigningcausesofdeathtoverbalautopsiesmultisitevalidationstudyusingclinicaldiagnosticgoldstandards AT lopezaland performanceofinsilicovaforassigningcausesofdeathtoverbalautopsiesmultisitevalidationstudyusingclinicaldiagnosticgoldstandards |