Analyzing hospitalization data: potential limitations of Poisson regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poisson regression is commonly used to analyze hospitalization data when outcomes are expressed as counts (e.g. number of days in hospital). However, data often violate the assumptions on which Poisson regression is based. More appropriate extensions of this model, while available, are rarely used. METHODS: We compared hospitalization data between 206 patients treated with hemodialysis (HD) and 107 treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD) using Poisson regression and compared results from standard Poisson regression with those obtained using three other approaches for modeling count data: negative binomial (NB) regression, zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) regression and zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) regression. We examined the appropriateness of each model and compared the results obtained with each approach. RESULTS: During a mean 1.9 years of follow-up, 183 of 313 patients (58%) were never hospitalized (indicating an excess of 'zeros'). The data also displayed overdispersion (variance greater than mean), violating another assumption of the Poisson model. Using four criteria, we determined that the NB and ZINB models performed best. According to these two models, patients treated with HD experienced similar hospitalization rates as those receiving PD {NB rate ratio (RR): 1.04 [bootstrapped 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-2.20]; ZINB summary RR: 1.21 (bootstrapped 95% CI 0.60-2.46)}. Poisson and ZIP models fit the data poorly and had much larger point estimates than the NB and ZINB models [Poisson RR: 1.93 (bootstrapped 95% CI 0.88-4.23); ZIP summary RR: 1.84 (bootstrapped 95% CI 0.88-3.84)]. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantially different results when modeling hospitalization data, depending on the approach used. Our results argue strongly for a sound model selection process and improved reporting around statistical methods used for modeling count 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 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 | 0.374 | 0.650 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".