The Use of Fixed-and Random-Effects Models for Classifying Hospitals as Mortality Outliers: A Monte Carlo Assessment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing movement towards the release of hospital "report-cards. "However, there is a paucity of research into the abilities of the different methods to correctly classify hospitals as performance outliers. OBJECTIVE: To examine the ability of risk-adjusted mortality rates computed using conventional logistic regression and random-effects logistic regression models to correctly identify hospitals that have higher than acceptable mortality. RESEARCH DESIGN: Monte Carlo simulations. MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of a classification as a high-outlier for identifying hospitals with higher than acceptable mortality rates. RESULTS: When the distribution of hospital specific log-odds of death was normal, random-effects models had greater specificity and positive predictive value than fixed-effects models. However, fixed-effects models had greater sensitivity than random-effects models. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers and policy makers need to carefully consider the balance between false positives and false negatives when choosing statistical models for determining which hospitals have higher than acceptable mortality in performance profiling.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it