Algorithms to estimate the beginning of pregnancy in administrative databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The role of administrative databases for research on drug safety during pregnancy can be limited by their inaccurate assessment of the timing of exposure, as the gestational age at birth is typically unavailable. Therefore, we sought to develop and validate algorithms to estimate the gestational age at birth using information available in these databases. METHODS: Using a population-based cohort of 286,432 mother-child pairs in British Columbia (1998-2007), we validated an ICD-9/10-based preterm-status indicator and developed algorithms to estimate the gestational age at birth on the basis of this indicator, maternal age, singleton/multiple status, and claims for routine prenatal care tests. We assessed the accuracy of the algorithm-based estimates relative to the gold standard of the clinical gestational age at birth recorded in the delivery discharge record. RESULTS: The preterm-status indicator had specificity and sensitivity of 98% and 91%, respectively. Estimates from an algorithm that assigned 35 weeks of gestational age at birth to deliveries with the preterm-status indicator and 39 weeks to those without them were within 2 weeks of the clinical gestational age at birth in 75% of preterm and 99% of term deliveries. CONCLUSIONS: Subtracting 35 weeks (245 days) from the date of birth in deliveries with codes for preterm birth and 39 weeks (273 days) in those without them provided the optimal estimate of the beginning of pregnancy among the algorithms studied.
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 | 0.043 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".