Using the Johns Hopkins’ Aggregated Diagnosis Groups (ADGs) to predict 1‐year mortality in population‐based cohorts of patients with diabetes in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: There are limited validated methods to ascertain comorbidities for risk adjustment in ambulatory populations of patients with diabetes using administrative health-care databases. The objective was to examine the ability of the Johns Hopkins' Aggregated Diagnosis Groups to predict mortality in population-based ambulatory samples of both incident and prevalent subjects with diabetes. METHODS: Retrospective cohorts constructed using population-based administrative data. The incident cohort consisted of all 346,297 subjects diagnosed with diabetes between 1 April 2004 and 31 March 2008. The prevalent cohort consisted of all 879,849 subjects with pre-existing diabetes on 1 January, 2007. The outcome was death within 1 year of the subject's index date. RESULTS: A logistic regression model consisting of age, sex and indicator variables for 22 of the 32 Johns Hopkins' Aggregated Diagnosis Group categories had excellent discrimination for predicting mortality in incident diabetes patients: the c-statistic was 0.87 in an independent validation sample. A similar model had excellent discrimination for predicting mortality in prevalent diabetes patients: the c-statistic was 0.84 in an independent validation sample. Both models demonstrated very good calibration, denoting good agreement between observed and predicted mortality across the range of predicted mortality in which the large majority of subjects lay. For comparative purposes, regression models incorporating the Charlson comorbidity index, age and sex, age and sex, and age alone had poorer discrimination than the model that incorporated the Johns Hopkins' Aggregated Diagnosis Groups. CONCLUSIONS: Logistical regression models using age, sex and the John Hopkins' Aggregated Diagnosis Groups were able to accurately predict 1-year mortality in population-based samples of patients with diabetes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".