Improving the use of mortality data in public health: a comparison of garbage code redistribution models
File(s)
Published version
Author(s)
Ng, Ta-Chou
Lo, Wei-Cheng
Ku, Chu-Chang
Lu, Tsung-Hsueh
Lin, Hsien-Ho
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Objectives. To describe and compare 3 garbage code (GC) redistribution models: naïve Bayes classifier (NB), coarsened exact matching (CEM), and multinomial logistic regression (MLR).
Methods. We analyzed Taiwan Vital Registration data (2008–2016) using a 2-step approach. First, we used non-GC death records to evaluate 3 different prediction models (NB, CEM, and MLR), incorporating individual-level information on multiple causes of death (MCDs) and demographic characteristics. Second, we applied the best-performing model to GC death records to predict the underlying causes of death. We conducted additional simulation analyses for evaluating the predictive performance of models.
Results. When we did not account for MCDs, all 3 models presented high average misclassification rates in GC assignment (NB, 81%; CEM, 86%; MLR, 81%). In the presence of MCD information, NB and MLR exhibited significant improvement in assignment accuracy (19% and 17% misclassification rate, respectively). Furthermore, CEM without a variable selection procedure resulted in a substantially higher misclassification rate (40%).
Conclusions. Comparing potential GC redistribution approaches provides guidance for obtaining better estimates of cause-of-death distribution and highlights the significance of MCD information for vital registration system reform.
Methods. We analyzed Taiwan Vital Registration data (2008–2016) using a 2-step approach. First, we used non-GC death records to evaluate 3 different prediction models (NB, CEM, and MLR), incorporating individual-level information on multiple causes of death (MCDs) and demographic characteristics. Second, we applied the best-performing model to GC death records to predict the underlying causes of death. We conducted additional simulation analyses for evaluating the predictive performance of models.
Results. When we did not account for MCDs, all 3 models presented high average misclassification rates in GC assignment (NB, 81%; CEM, 86%; MLR, 81%). In the presence of MCD information, NB and MLR exhibited significant improvement in assignment accuracy (19% and 17% misclassification rate, respectively). Furthermore, CEM without a variable selection procedure resulted in a substantially higher misclassification rate (40%).
Conclusions. Comparing potential GC redistribution approaches provides guidance for obtaining better estimates of cause-of-death distribution and highlights the significance of MCD information for vital registration system reform.
Date Issued
2020-02
Date Acceptance
2019-10-11
Citation
American Journal of Public Health, 2020, 110 (2), pp.222-229
ISSN
0090-0036
Publisher
American Public Health Association
Start Page
222
End Page
229
Journal / Book Title
American Journal of Public Health
Volume
110
Issue
2
Copyright Statement
© 2020 The Author(s)
Identifier
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305439
Subjects
11 Medical and Health Sciences
Public Health
Publication Status
Published
Date Publish Online
2020-01-08