MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting Risks of Increased Morbidity among Atrial Fibrillation Patients using Consumption Classes

2014· article· en· W2085276374 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter Congdon, Qiang Cai, Gary A. Puckrein, Liou Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBivariate analysisAtrial fibrillationRegression analysisFramingham Risk ScoreMultivariate statisticsRegressionRisk assessmentInternal medicineStatisticsDiseaseComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common chronic cardiac arrhythmia. Predicting the risk of complications, or associated increases in healthcare costs, among AF patients is important for effective health care management. Methods: A bivariate regression model including a latent morbidity index is used to predict both risk of transition to higher health costs, and mortality risk over a single year. A risk scoring algorithm for predicting transition to higher cost levels is then set out which incorporates the most significant risk factors from the regression. Results: The regression analysis shows that in addition to age and comorbidities, baseline consumption category, ethnic group, metropolitan residence and Warfarin adherence are also significant influences on progression to increased health consumption, and relevant to assessing risk. The resulting risk scoring algorithm produces a higher AUC than the widely applied CHADS2 score. Conclusions: The utility of a bivariate regression method with a latent morbidity index for predicting transition to worsening health status among AF patients is demonstrated. A risk scoring system based on this method outperforms an established risk score.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.593
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.009 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical ResearchSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207