Cited by 10Autopsy Techniques and OutcomesForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesLegal processes and jurisprudence

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Sources of bias in death determination: A research note articulating the need to include systemic sources of biases along with cognitive ones as impacting mortality data

Open access
Neuilly, Melanie‐Angela·2022·Journal of Forensic Sciences

Abstract

There are structural and organizational factors that impact how and what mortality data are collected. There are individual decision‐making processes and implicit cognitive biases that influence how and what mortality data are collected. Yet there seems to be a disconnect between how and why these two broad sources of bias may collide and how both need to be understood in order to be able to approach solutions aimed at strengthening the accuracy of mortality data. Using results from a mixed‐method, long‐term research project at four medicolegal offices in two countries, France and the United States, this research note proposes that truly understanding the sources of implicit cognitive bias in forensic pathologists and other medicolegal actors requires knowledge of legal, cultural, and organizational structures that shape medicolegal systems and in turn constrain individual actors' decision‐making processes. The goal is to advocate for multilevel and multi‐methods approaches to propose systemic solutions to the issue of implicit cognitive biases in forensic pathologists and other medicolegal actors' decision‐making processes. For this purpose, the author outlines a series of specific issues to be integrated in future research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1556-4029.15080

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1111/1556-4029.14220 · DOI
  3. 10.1177/002580240104100205 · DOI
  4. 10.1136/injuryprev‐2018‐042889 · DOI
  5. 10.1027/0227‐5910/a000071 · DOI
  6. 10.1186/1471‐244X‐10‐35 · DOI
  7. 10.3390/ijerph15040765 · DOI
  8. 10.2105/AJPH.2004.040063 · DOI
  9. 10.1542/peds.110.2.e18 · DOI
  10. 10.1177/0193841X9702100103 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/1556‐4029.14697 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/j.0956‐7976.2005.00800.x · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1207/s15324834basp2802_9 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.avb.2007.02.004 · DOI
  15. 10.1080/15564886.2011.581884 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/1556‐4029.13689 · DOI
  17. 10.1177/0886260516647006 · DOI
  18. 10.1177/183335831003900303 · DOI
  19. 10.1097/paf.0b013e31820c2ee6 · DOI
  20. RouxA.Des meurtres sous le tapis faute d'autopsie [Murders go undetected due to a lack of autopsies]. Le Journal du Dimanche 2016. [cited 2022 June 2]. Available from:https://www.lejdd.fr/Societe/Des‐meurtres‐sous‐le‐tapis‐faute‐d‐autopsie‐801187
  21. Bonnie R, 2003, Opening remarks. In: Committee for the Workshop on the Medicolegal Death Investigation System, editors. Medicolegal death investigation system: Workshop summary
  22. Timmermans S, 2006, Postmortem: How medical examiners explain suspicious deaths, 3, 10.7208/chicago/9780226804002.001.0001 · DOI
  23. Lacassagne A, 1906, Précis de médecine légale [Legal medicine manual], 7
  24. 10.1016/j.ddes.2013.01.004 · DOI
  25. Jardé O, 2003, Rapport au Premier Ministre sur la médecine légale [Report to the Prime Minister on the issue of legal medicine]
  26. 10.4159/9780674054066-001 · DOI
  27. 10.1001/jama.279.11.870 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.humpath.2004.01.010 · DOI
  29. 10.1097/PAF.0b013e31815b4d5a · DOI
  30. 10.1097/00000433‐199709000‐00002 · DOI
  31. 10.23907/2015.042 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Neuilly, M.
Affiliations
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology Washington State University Pullman Washington USA
Venue
Journal of Forensic Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-06-20
Volume
67
Issue
5
Pages
2032-2039
ISSN
  • 0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-4029
OpenAlex
W4283208793
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
1.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Forensic Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Washington State University (Seed Grant)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
Keywords
death determination, systemic bias, forensic pathologists, death investigation, decision-making, organizational structure, multilevel analysis
MeSH terms
Cognition, Decision Making, France, Bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review