Assessing record linkage between health care and Vital Statistics databases using deterministic methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We assessed the linkage and correct linkage rate using deterministic record linkage among three commonly used Canadian databases, namely, the population registry, hospital discharge data and Vital Statistics registry. METHODS: Three combinations of four personal identifiers (surname, first name, sex and date of birth) were used to determine the optimal combination. The correct linkage rate was assessed using a unique personal health number available in all three databases. RESULTS: Among the three combinations, the combination of surname, sex, and date of birth had the highest linkage rate of 88.0% and 93.1%, and the second highest correct linkage rate of 96.9% and 98.9% between the population registry and Vital Statistics registry, and between the hospital discharge data and Vital Statistics registry in 2001, respectively. Adding the first name to the combination of the three identifiers above increased correct linkage by less than 1%, but at the cost of lowering the linkage rate almost by 10%. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the combination of surname, sex and date of birth appears to be optimal using deterministic linkage. The linkage and correct linkage rates appear to vary by age and the type of database, but not by sex.
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 | 0.260 | 0.507 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".