Monitoring binary outcomes using risk‐adjusted charts: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring binary outcomes when evaluating health care performance has recently become common. Classical statistical methodologies such as cumulative sum (CUSUM) charts have been refined and used for this purpose. For instance, the risk-adjusted CUSUM chart (RA-CUSUM) for monitoring binary outcomes was proposed for monitoring 30-day mortality following cardiac surgery. The RA-CUSUM inherits optimality properties of the original CUSUM charts in the sense of signaling early when there is change. However, although the RA-CUSUM is a powerful monitoring tool, it will always eventually signal a change with probability 1 even when there is no real change. In other words, the probability of a type I error for the RA-CUSUM is 1. It also turns out that, because of the skewed distribution of the run lengths of the RA-CUSUM, the median is often well below the mean, and as a consequence more than half of all its false alarms occur before the designed average run length. In addition, when the change to be detected occurs at a later time in the series of observations being monitored, the rate of false alarms increases, and the RA-CUSUM may not be appropriate. Therefore, if the price of false alarms is high, it is preferable to use methods that control the rate of false alarms. In this paper, we propose alternative sequential curtailed and risk-adjusted charts that control the type I error rate in the context of monitoring 30-day mortality following cardiac surgery. We explore the merits of each of these methodologies in terms of average run lengths as well as in terms of type I error probabilities, and we compare them to the RA-CUSUM chart. We illustrate the methodologies by using data on monitoring performance of seven surgeons from a medical center.
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 | 0.039 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".