Assessment of systemic lupus erythematosus diagnoses within Quebec's health administrative databases
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic, relatively uncommon autoimmune disease that has a relapsing-remitting course, with clinical manifestations in various organ systems (cutaneous, renal, and other). To control disease, immunosuppressive drugs are often required. Health administrative databases are useful for studying SLE because of their wide population coverage, and could potentially be used to study SLE incidence, prevalence, clinical manifestations, and medication use. However, because the diagnoses in these administrative databases are not necessarily clinically confirmed, SLE case ascertainment is a methodological challenge. First, some of the methodological issues were examined in this thesis. Second, clinical manifestations and the association between early antimalarial drug use and future renal manifestations were examined in a cohort of SLE patients. Methods: The initial SLE case definition was a previously-used algorithm that identified subjects as having SLE if they met one of the following criteria: one SLE hospital discharge code, one rheumatologist SLE claim and/or two SLE non-rheumatologist claims at least eight weeks apart but within two years. Alternative algorithms were formed by modifying one or more of the initial algorithm's parameters. Incidence and prevalence estimates were determined using each alternative algorithm and compared to the initial estimates. The effect of using different data period lengths for detecting patients was also examined. Kaplan-Meier (K-M) analyses were performed to assess documentation of clinical SLE manifestations and use of selected immunosuppressant medications, within an incident SLE cohort identified by the initial algorithm (described above). The observation interval began four years prior to SLE diagnosis and continued up to eight years after SLE diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to examine the association between early antimalarial drug use and renal manifestations. Results: With the initial algorithm, the 1998 yearly incidence was 6.0 cases per 100,000 (95% confidence interval (CI), 5.5–6.6). When parameters from the initial algorithm were changed, the 1998 incidence varied to between 4.4 and 7.4/100,000. The prevalence also changed from 65.5/100,000 (95% CI: 63.7–67.4) with the initial algorithm, to between 47.8–79.1/100,000 with the alternate algorithms. When the length of the data period changed from fifteen years to five years, the 2001 yearly incidence was overestimated by 38.3% (5.7/100,000 initially and 7.9/100,000 with only five years of data) and the prevalence was underestimated by 29.9% (the new estimate being 46.0/100,000, 95% CI: 44.4–47.5).Over-all, 66.2% (95%CI: 63.4–68.9%) of incident patients (within the SLE cohort assembled using the initial algorithm) had evidence of at least one SLE manifestation within the period under examination. The most common manifestation was cutaneous involvement, present in 30.0%. Within the sub-cohort of incident SLE patients covered by RAMQ drug insurance, 87.2% (95% CI: 84.2–90.3%) had received at least one of the medications under study, by the end of the study interval. No association was found between early antimalarial drug use and subsequent renal manifestations.Conclusion: Varying the case definition and data period can change incidence and prevalence estimates considerably, so all features, including the time period in which the data spans, should be selected carefully and explicitly stated. The majority of incident SLE patients had evidence of SLE manifestations or used medications which would provide possible confirmation of SLE case status. This additional information can be used in future health services administrative database research to understand SLE, and help compensate for the databases' lack of clinical confirming 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 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 | 0,003 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».