MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7106312248 · doi:10.5683/sp3/qp5wye

Assessing the validity of post-discharge readmission and mortality as a composite outcome among newborns in Uganda

2025· dataset· W7106312248 sur OpenAlexaffabout

Notice bibliographique

RevueBorealis · 2025
Typedataset
Langue
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésOutcome (game theory)ReferralHazard ratioProportional hazards modelMortality rateHospital readmissionPropensity score matchingInfant mortality

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Composite outcomes, which include mortality and readmission rates, are often used in risk prediction models following hospital discharge when event rates for the primary outcome of interest, mortality, are low. However, increased readmission rates may result in decreased mortality making interpretation of the composite outcome difficult. We assess the usefulness of a composite outcome of post-discharge readmission and mortality as a target outcome in this context. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data collected among mothers and their newborn(s) admitted for delivery at two regional referral hospitals in Uganda. Six-week post-discharge mortality (all-cause) and readmission in newborn infants were analyzed using a competing risk framework. The Sub distribution Hazard Ratios (SHRs) were compared across predictor variables to examine the relationship between the two outcomes. Results: Of the 206 predictors, 81 had a consistent association with both outcomes. These include a higher weight (Mortality SHR: 0.14, Readmission SHR: 0.68) and length of the baby (Mortality SHR: 0.85, Readmission SHR: 0.91). However, 125 variables depicted an association in opposing directions for both outcomes which may be linked to social and financial barriers to care-seeking. These include a travel time to the hospital of greater than 1 hour (Mortality SHR: 1.4, Readmission SHR: 0.28). Conclusion: While mortality is unequivocally a negative outcome, readmission may be a positive outcome, reflecting health seeking, or a negative outcome, reflecting recurrent illness. This directional dichotomy is reflected to varying degrees within different variables. When using a composite outcome for a prediction model, caution should be exercised to ensure that the model identifies individuals at risk of the intended outcomes of interest, rather than merely the proxies used to represent those outcomes. Identifying predictors with a consistent relationship for both outcomes may yield a more optimized and less biased prediction model for use in clinical care. Data Collection Methods: All data were collected at the point of care using encrypted study tablets and these data were then uploaded to a Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database hosted at the BC Children’s Hospital Research Institute (Vancouver, Canada). Following delivery of newborns, written consent was obtained to complete a structured questionnaire in-person and a follow-up questionnaire over the phone six weeks later broadly categorized into the following five domains: 1) social and demographic, 2) pregnancy history and antenatal care, 3) delivery, 4) maternal discharge, and 5) neonatal discharge. Data Processing Methods: The initial cleaned data file was created using R version 4.2.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Further processing to obtain the final dataset used for analysis including filtering for exclusion criteria, removing predictors with low incidence, and imputing missing values using multiple imputations were also performed in R in the R scripts titled “MBCO_Analysis_Code_SD.R”. Data Analysis Methods: All analyses were conducted using R version 4.4.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Libraries used within the script include: tidyverse, Hmisc, reshape2, mice, survival, cmprsk, riskRegression, survminer, ggplot2, ggfortify and gridExtra. Ethics Declaration: This study was approved by Makerere University School of Public Health (MakSPH) Institutional Review Board (SPH-2021-177), the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology (UNCST) in Uganda (HS2174ES) and the University of British Columbia in Canada (H21-03709). This study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05730387). Abbreviations: ANC: Antenatal Care CI: Confidence interval HIV: Human immunodeficiency virus HR: Heart rate JRRH: Jinja Regional Referral Hospital LMIC: Low-middle income country MRRH: Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital OR: Odds ratio PNC: Postnatal care PPD: Postpartum depression Q1: First quartile Q3: Third quartile RR: Respiratory rate SD: Standard deviation SpO2: Oxygen saturation Funding Source(s): Funding was provided by British Columbia Children's Hospital Research Institute Healthy Starts Catalyst Grant: JMA, ACD. Abhroneel Ghosh also received funding from the Mitacs Globalink Research Internship to conduct research with the team at the Institute for Global Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Study Protocol & Supplementary Materials: Smart Discharges for Mom & Baby 2.0: A cohort study to develop prognostic algorithms for post-discharge readmission and mortality among mother-infant dyads

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Jeu de données · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,060

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,037
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,054
Tête enseignante GPT0,377
Écart entre enseignants0,323 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreJeu de données

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBorealis→Travaux en français237 207→