A comparison of several regression models for analysing cost of CABG surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigators in clinical research are often interested in determining the association between patient characteristics and cost of medical or surgical treatment. However, there is no uniformly agreed upon regression model with which to analyse cost data. The objective of the current study was to compare the performance of linear regression, linear regression with log-transformed cost, generalized linear models with Poisson, negative binomial and gamma distributions, median regression, and proportional hazards models for analysing costs in a cohort of patients undergoing CABG surgery. The study was performed on data comprising 1959 patients who underwent CABG surgery in Calgary, Alberta, between June 1994 and March 1998. Ten of 21 patient characteristics were significantly associated with cost of surgery in all seven models. Eight variables were not significantly associated with cost of surgery in all seven models. Using mean squared prediction error as a loss function, proportional hazards regression and the three generalized linear models were best able to predict cost in independent validation data. Using mean absolute error, linear regression with log-transformed cost, proportional hazards regression, and median regression to predict median cost, were best able to predict cost in independent validation data. Since the models demonstrated good consistency in identifying factors associated with increased cost of CABG surgery, any of the seven models can be used for identifying factors associated with increased cost of surgery. However, the magnitude of, and the interpretation of, the coefficients vary across models. Researchers are encouraged to consider a variety of candidate models, including those better known in the econometrics literature, rather than begin data analysis with one regression model selected a priori. The final choice of regression model should be made after a careful assessment of how best to assess predictive ability and should be tailored to the particular data in question.
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 | 0.072 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".