MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968335419 · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-16

Ascertainment of chronic diseases using population health data: a comparison of health administrative data and patient self-report

2013· article· en· W1968335419 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Elizabeth Muggah, Erin Graves, Carol Bennett, Douglas G. Manuel

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesÉlisabeth Bruyère Hospital
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Myocardial infarctionPopulationConcordanceBiostatisticsCOPDEpidemiologyHeart failureCohen's kappaDiabetes mellitusPublic healthEmergency medicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health administrative data is increasingly being used for chronic disease surveillance. This study explored agreement between administrative and survey data for ascertainment of seven key chronic diseases, using individually linked data from a large population of individuals in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: All adults who completed any one of three cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (2001, 2003 or 2005) and agreed to have their responses linked to provincial health administrative data were included. The sample population included 85,549 persons. Previously validated case definitions for myocardial infarction, asthma, diabetes, chronic lung disease, stroke, hypertension and congestive heart failure based on hospital and physician billing codes were used to identify cases in health administrative data and these were compared with self-report of each disease from the survey. Concordance was measured using the Kappa statistic, percent positive and negative agreement and prevalence estimates. RESULTS: Agreement using the Kappa statistic was good or very good (kappa range: 0.66-0.80) for diabetes and hypertension, moderate for myocardial infarction and asthma and poor or fair (kappa range: 0.29-0.36) for stroke, congestive heart failure and COPD. Prevalence was higher in health administrative data for all diseases except stroke and myocardial infarction. Health Utilities Index scores were higher for cases identified by health administrative data compared with self-reported data for some chronic diseases (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure), suggesting that administrative data may pick up less severe cases. CONCLUSIONS: In the general population, discordance between self-report and administrative data was large for many chronic diseases, particularly disease with low prevalence, and differences were not easily explained by individual and disease characteristics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations244
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicData-Driven Disease SurveillanceFrench-language works237,207