Using the Johns Hopkins Aggregated Diagnosis Groups (ADGs) to Predict Mortality in a General Adult Population Cohort in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Administrative healthcare databases are increasingly used for health services and comparative effectiveness research. When comparing outcomes between different treatments, interventions, or exposures, the ability to adjust for differences in the risk of the outcome occurring between treatment groups is important. Similarly, when conducting healthcare provider profiling, adequate risk-adjustment is necessary for conclusions about provider performance to be valid. There are limited validated methods for risk adjustment in ambulatory populations using administrative healthcare databases. OBJECTIVES: To examine the ability of the Johns Hopkins' Aggregated Diagnosis Groups (ADGs) to predict mortality in a general ambulatory population cohort. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort constructed using population-based administrative data. SUBJECTS: All 10,498,413 residents of Ontario, Canada between the ages of 20 and 100 years who were alive on their birthday in 2007. Subjects were randomly divided into derivation and validation samples. MEASURES: Death within 1 year of the subject's birthday in 2007. RESULTS: A logistic regression model consisting of age, sex, and indicator variables for 28 of the 32 ADG categories had excellent discrimination: the c-statistic (equivalent to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) was 0.917 in both derivation and validation samples. Furthermore, the model showed very good calibration. In comparison, the use of the Charlson comorbidity index or the Elixhauser comorbidities resulted in a minor decrease in discrimination compared with the use of the ADGs. CONCLUSIONS: Logistic regression models using age, sex, and the John Hopkins ADGs were able to accurately predict 1-year mortality in a general ambulatory population of subjects.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".