MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085764445 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085278

Linkage, Evaluation and Analysis of National Electronic Healthcare Data: Application to Providing Enhanced Blood-Stream Infection Surveillance in Paediatric Intensive Care

2013· article· en· W2085764445 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Katie Harron, Harvey Goldstein, Angie Wade, Berit Müller‐Pebody, Roger Parslow, Ruth Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenIntensive Care SocietyUniversity of OxfordNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNHS Health Scotland
KeywordsMedicineGold standard (test)IdentifierBloodstream infectionBlood streamIntensive careLinkage (software)Imputation (statistics)AuditBacteremiaHealth careEmergency medicinePediatricsMissing dataIntensive care medicineInternal medicineStatisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Linkage of risk-factor data for blood-stream infection (BSI) in paediatric intensive care (PICU) with bacteraemia surveillance data to monitor risk-adjusted infection rates in PICU is complicated by a lack of unique identifiers and under-ascertainment in the national surveillance system. We linked, evaluated and performed preliminary analyses on these data to provide a practical guide on the steps required to handle linkage of such complex data sources. METHODS: Data on PICU admissions in England and Wales for 2003-2010 were extracted from the Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network. Records of all positive isolates from blood cultures taken for children <16 years and captured by the national voluntary laboratory surveillance system for 2003-2010 were extracted from the Public Health England database, LabBase2. "Gold-standard" datasets with unique identifiers were obtained directly from three laboratories, containing microbiology reports that were eligible for submission to LabBase2 (defined as "clinically significant" by laboratory microbiologists). Reports in the gold-standard datasets were compared to those in LabBase2 to estimate ascertainment in LabBase2. Linkage evaluated by comparing results from two classification methods (highest-weight classification of match weights and prior-informed imputation using match probabilities) with linked records in the gold-standard data. BSI rate was estimated as the proportion of admissions associated with at least one BSI. RESULTS: Reporting gaps were identified in 548/2596 lab-months of LabBase2. Ascertainment of clinically significant BSI in the remaining months was approximately 80-95%. Prior-informed imputation provided the least biased estimate of BSI rate (5.8% of admissions). Adjusting for ascertainment, the estimated BSI rate was 6.1-7.3%. CONCLUSION: Linkage of PICU admission data with national BSI surveillance provides the opportunity for enhanced surveillance but analyses based on these data need to take account of biases due to ascertainment and linkage error. This study provides a generalisable guide for linkage, evaluation and analysis of complex electronic healthcare data.

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)0.236
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.406
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2360.406
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
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

Citations46
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207