Cargando…

Non-confirming replication of “Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards,” by Flaxman et al.

BACKGROUND: A verbal autopsy (VA) is an interview conducted with the caregivers of someone who has recently died to describe the circumstances of the death. In recent years, several algorithmic methods have been developed to classify cause of death using VA data. The performance of one method—InSili...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Zehang Richard, McCormick, Tyler H., Clark, Samuel J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7098138/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32213178
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01518-9
_version_ 1783511132748644352
author Li, Zehang Richard
McCormick, Tyler H.
Clark, Samuel J.
author_facet Li, Zehang Richard
McCormick, Tyler H.
Clark, Samuel J.
author_sort Li, Zehang Richard
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A verbal autopsy (VA) is an interview conducted with the caregivers of someone who has recently died to describe the circumstances of the death. In recent years, several algorithmic methods have been developed to classify cause of death using VA data. The performance of one method—InSilicoVA—was evaluated in a study by Flaxman et al., published in BMC Medicine in 2018. The results of that study are different from those previously published by our group. METHODS: Based on the description of methods in the Flaxman et al. study, we attempt to replicate the analysis to understand why the published results differ from those of our previous work. RESULTS: We failed to reproduce the results published in Flaxman et al. Most of the discrepancies we find likely result from undocumented differences in data pre-processing, and/or values assigned to key parameters governing the behavior of the algorithm. CONCLUSION: This finding highlights the importance of making replication code available along with published results. All code necessary to replicate the work described here is freely available on GitHub.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7098138
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70981382020-03-27 Non-confirming replication of “Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards,” by Flaxman et al. Li, Zehang Richard McCormick, Tyler H. Clark, Samuel J. BMC Med Correspondence BACKGROUND: A verbal autopsy (VA) is an interview conducted with the caregivers of someone who has recently died to describe the circumstances of the death. In recent years, several algorithmic methods have been developed to classify cause of death using VA data. The performance of one method—InSilicoVA—was evaluated in a study by Flaxman et al., published in BMC Medicine in 2018. The results of that study are different from those previously published by our group. METHODS: Based on the description of methods in the Flaxman et al. study, we attempt to replicate the analysis to understand why the published results differ from those of our previous work. RESULTS: We failed to reproduce the results published in Flaxman et al. Most of the discrepancies we find likely result from undocumented differences in data pre-processing, and/or values assigned to key parameters governing the behavior of the algorithm. CONCLUSION: This finding highlights the importance of making replication code available along with published results. All code necessary to replicate the work described here is freely available on GitHub. BioMed Central 2020-03-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7098138/ /pubmed/32213178 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01518-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Correspondence
Li, Zehang Richard
McCormick, Tyler H.
Clark, Samuel J.
Non-confirming replication of “Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards,” by Flaxman et al.
title Non-confirming replication of “Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards,” by Flaxman et al.
title_full Non-confirming replication of “Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards,” by Flaxman et al.
title_fullStr Non-confirming replication of “Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards,” by Flaxman et al.
title_full_unstemmed Non-confirming replication of “Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards,” by Flaxman et al.
title_short Non-confirming replication of “Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards,” by Flaxman et al.
title_sort non-confirming replication of “performance of insilicova for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards,” by flaxman et al.
topic Correspondence
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7098138/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32213178
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01518-9
work_keys_str_mv AT lizehangrichard nonconfirmingreplicationofperformanceofinsilicovaforassigningcausesofdeathtoverbalautopsiesmultisitevalidationstudyusingclinicaldiagnosticgoldstandardsbyflaxmanetal
AT mccormicktylerh nonconfirmingreplicationofperformanceofinsilicovaforassigningcausesofdeathtoverbalautopsiesmultisitevalidationstudyusingclinicaldiagnosticgoldstandardsbyflaxmanetal
AT clarksamuelj nonconfirmingreplicationofperformanceofinsilicovaforassigningcausesofdeathtoverbalautopsiesmultisitevalidationstudyusingclinicaldiagnosticgoldstandardsbyflaxmanetal