Where No Universal Health Care Identifier Exists: Comparison and Determination of the Utility of Score-Based Persons Matching Algorithms Using Demographic Data
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: A universal health care identifier (UHID) facilitates the development of longitudinal medical records in health care settings where follow up and tracking of persons across health care sectors are needed. HIV case-based surveillance (CBS) entails longitudinal follow up of HIV cases from diagnosis, linkage to care and treatment, and is recommended for second generation HIV surveillance. In the absence of a UHID, records matching, linking, and deduplication may be done using score-based persons matching algorithms. We present a stepwise process of score-based persons matching algorithms based on demographic data to improve HIV CBS and other longitudinal data systems. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare deterministic and score-based persons matching algorithms in records linkage and matching using demographic data in settings without a UHID. METHODS: We used HIV CBS pilot data from 124 facilities in 2 high HIV-burden counties (Siaya and Kisumu) in western Kenya. For efficient processing, data were grouped into 3 scenarios within (1) HIV testing services (HTS), (2) HTS-care, and (3) within care. In deterministic matching, we directly compared identifiers and pseudo-identifiers from medical records to determine matches. We used R stringdist package for Jaro, Jaro-Winkler score-based matching and Levenshtein, and Damerau-Levenshtein string edit distance calculation methods. For the Jaro-Winkler method, we used a penalty (р)=0.1 and applied 4 weights (ω) to Levenshtein and Damerau-Levenshtein: deletion ω=0.8, insertion ω=0.8, substitutions ω=1, and transposition ω=0.5. RESULTS: We abstracted 12,157 cases of which 4073/12,157 (33.5%) were from HTS, 1091/12,157 (9.0%) from HTS-care, and 6993/12,157 (57.5%) within care. Using the deterministic process 435/12,157 (3.6%) duplicate records were identified, yielding 96.4% (11,722/12,157) unique cases. Overall, of the score-based methods, Jaro-Winkler yielded the most duplicate records (686/12,157, 5.6%) while Jaro yielded the least duplicates (546/12,157, 4.5%), and Levenshtein and Damerau-Levenshtein yielded 4.6% (563/12,157) duplicates. Specifically, duplicate records yielded by method were: (1) Jaro 5.7% (234/4073) within HTS, 0.4% (4/1091) in HTS-care, and 4.4% (308/6993) within care, (2) Jaro-Winkler 7.4% (302/4073) within HTS, 0.5% (6/1091) in HTS-care, and 5.4% (378/6993) within care, (3) Levenshtein 6.4% (262/4073) within HTS, 0.4% (4/1091) in HTS-care, and 4.2% (297/6993) within care, and (4) Damerau-Levenshtein 6.4% (262/4073) within HTS, 0.4% (4/1091) in HTS-care, and 4.2% (297/6993) within care. CONCLUSIONS: Without deduplication, over reporting occurs across the care and treatment cascade. Jaro-Winkler score-based matching performed the best in identifying matches. A pragmatic estimate of duplicates in health care settings can provide a corrective factor for modeled estimates, for targeting and program planning. We propose that even without a UHID, standard national deduplication and persons-matching algorithm that utilizes demographic data would improve accuracy in monitoring HIV care clinical cascades.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle