Methods for chronic disease epidemiology: longitudinal data and case definitions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Administrative health data, such as physician billing claims and hospital discharge abstracts, are routinely used to produce chronic disease estimates (i.e., incidence and prevalence). Incidence and prevalence measures are estimated using case definitions, a set of rules for identifying disease cases, including disease-specific diagnosis codes. Creating valid case definitions can be challenging due to errors in diagnosis codes and changes in their use and meaning over time. Using multiple years of data that capture an individual’s longitudinal health history may be advantageous for constructing accurate case definitions. The goal of this research was to develop and evaluate chronic disease case definitions using longitudinal administrative health data. Four related studies were conducted. The first study assessed case definition sensitivity to changes in data quality using control charts, which were originally developed to monitor out-of-control processes in manufacturing. Control charts were applied to juvenile diabetes (JD) incidence and prevalence trends that were estimated using previously validated case definitions. Frequency of out-of-control observations, which may be influenced by nonrandom errors in data, was compared across case definitions using McNamar’s test with a Holm-Bonferroni adjustment and control limits based on Cohen’s effect size. No differences in incidence and prevalence trends were detected. The second study applied control charts to multiple sclerosis (MS) incidence and prevalence trends to determine if control limit calculations to identify out-of-control observations could be generalized across diseases. Similar to JD, there were no differences in incidence and prevalence trends across case definitions. However, results indicated wider control limits may be more appropriate for MS compared to JD. The third study developed and evaluated the performance of model-based case definitions for MS that relied on trends in healthcare use to identify cases. Dynamic classification, which ascertains cases and non-cases annually, was used to estimate the average trend needed for case classification. A trend-based case definition resulted in similar estimates of validity compared to a deterministic case definition of three or more MS contacts; an observation period of unlimited duration was used to ascertain cases. However, the trend-based case definition had higher sensitivity than the deterministic case definition when the number of data years used for classification was reduced to five years, which was the estimated average trend needed. In the fourth study, I created and validated MS and JD model-based case definitions that incorporated a reclassification exit rule to account for biased prevalence trends due to misclassification. Case probabilities were calculated annually and used to reclassify individuals when the probabilities dropped below a cut-off criterion. Comparisons of prevalence trends obtained from the exit rule case definition to trends obtained from existing national case definitions revealed differences in slope trends for MS, but not for JD. This research contributes to the literature on use of administrative health data for health research and surveillance. It demonstrates the importance of considering how changes over time in data-, disease-, and case definition-based factors can be incorporated into chronic disease case definition development and application. Findings are beneficial to epidemiologists and researchers who rely on the Public Health Agency of Canada’s Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System to routinely and systematically monitor population health using administrative health data.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».