Can administrative healthcare data be used to predict post-discharge emergency room visits in seniors with colon cancer?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional in-depth evaluation that can be used to assess and estimate life expectancy, risk of morbidity and the physiological age of older cancer patients. Conducting a CGA, however, is resource-intensive. The CGA is also not specifically targeted towards assessing cancer patients and fails to take into account the impact of past medical events. Objectives: We sought to determine if age-specific risk factors comprising the CGA as well as patterns of healthcare use could be assessed in patients 65 years and older undergoing colon cancer surgery between 2000-2006 using administrative healthcare data. We also aimed to determine whether any associations exist between these risk factors and the occurrence of post-discharge emergency room visits (PERVs). Methods: We first conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO registration number CRD42012002476) using MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and CANCERLIT databases. to identify CGA domains most predictive of adverse cancer-related outcomes, including treatment-related toxicity, mortality and postoperative complications. Studies published in English or French between May 1997 and May 2012, in which a CGA was conducted in patients over the age of 65 initiating cancer treatment, were assessed for eligibility, of which 9 studies were selected for this review. We subsequently conducted a historical cohort study using administrative healthcare data. This involved using administrative claims provided by Quebec's healthcare insurance program (RAMQ) and hospitalization data to identify patients 65 years and older receiving colon cancer surgery between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2006. Using a one-year look-back period, ICD-9 and generic drug codes were used to characterize patients' history of relevant comorbidities. Service claims, hospitalization and prescription data were also used to characterize past patterns of healthcare use. Following bivariate analyses, a multivariate logistic regression was used to quantify risk factors for ER visits occurring within 30 days of discharge. Results: Our systematic review indicated that, in predicting mortality, in at least one study or another, all CGA domains were found to be significant. Most frequently, the following domains were reported for predicting mortality: nutritional status, the presence of geriatric syndromes such as depression, and functional status. With regards to chemotherapy-related toxicity, similar findings were obtained where functional status and the presence of geriatric syndromes, such as impaired hearing, had the most significant predictive value. Only one study reported on the incidence of post-operative complications for which severe comorbidity was found to be highly associated with experiencing severe complications, while functional status was found to be significantly associated with experiencing any complication. 3789 patients were included in our historical cohort, of which 17.18% made a PERV. The results of the multivariate logistic regression indicated that certain CGA domains were predictive of PERVs. Specifically, individuals that had recently received care for either diabetes or cardiovascular disease had a greater odds of experiencing a PERV. In addition, individuals with increased medication use, as measured by the number of unique medications dispensed within 6 months preceding surgery were more likely to experience a PERV. A number of patterns of past healthcare use also demonstrated predictive utility for the PERV outcome, including a history of visiting the ER, and whether a patient had visited the ER within 30 days preceding surgery for colon cancer-related symptoms. Conclusions: Certain age-specific risk factors and past patterns of healthcare use may predict PERVs. This has important implications in the development of age-sensitive electronic risk-profiling tools.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,169 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,015 | 0,018 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».