MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of the Elixhauser and Charlson/Deyo Methods of Comorbidity Measurement in Administrative Data

2004· article· en· W1974173658 on OpenAlexaffabout
Danielle A. Southern, Hude Quan, William A. Ghali

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Care · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsSouth Health Campus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComorbidityStatisticStatisticsMyocardial infarctionEmergency medicineInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity risk adjustment methods have been used widely with administrative data, and the Charlson/Deyo method is perhaps the most commonly used in the literature. However, a new method defined by Elixhauser et al. has been introduced recently and could be superior, although it has not been validated widely. OBJECTIVES: We compared the Charlson/Deyo and Elixhauser methods using Canadian administrative data on patients with myocardial infarction (MI). RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a historical cohort study. SUBJECTS: We used administrative hospital discharge data from a large Canadian city for all cases with acute MI coded as most responsible diagnosis between January 1, 1995, and March 31, 2001. MEASURES: We used each of the 2 methods to define comorbidity variables based on the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes present in each case record. We then compared 2 models predicting in-hospital mortality based on presence or absence of the variables defined by each of the methods. Frequency tables were produced and c-statistics and changes in -2 log likelihood (-2LogL) were calculated. We also visually assessed model performance by plotting observed and expected percentages of death for increasing risk categories defined by the 2 models. RESULTS: The Elixhauser model outperformed the Charlson/Deyo model in predicting mortality, with higher c-statistic values (0.793 vs. 0.704). Superior performance of the Elixhauser method is confirmed when plotting the expected and observed risks of death across groupings of increasing risk, in which the Elixhauser method yields a wider range of predicted and observed probabilities of death across groupings (2.5%-33%) than does the Charlson/Deyo method (5%-25%). CONCLUSIONS: The Elixhauser comorbidity measurement method performs better than the widely used Charlson/Deyo method in the Canadian acute MI cases 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 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)0.091
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.168
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 score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0910.168
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.379
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Citations588
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical CareSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207