MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155395793 · doi:10.1177/0272989x04273142

Optimal Statistical Decisions for Hospital Report Cards

2005· article· en· W2155395793 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter C. Austin, Geoffrey M. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Decision Making · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsFalse positive paradoxStatistical significanceFalse positives and false negativesMedicineStatisticsQuality (philosophy)Relative valueActuarial scienceOperations managementMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Hospital report cards provide information designed to help patients and providers to make decisions. The purpose of this study was to place the design of hospital report cards into a decision-theoretic framework. The authors' objectives were 2-fold: 1st, to determine what the choice of significance level implies about the relative value of the different types of misclassifications that can arise. Second, to determine optimal significance levels for specific cost functions describing the relative costs associated with different types of misclassifications. METHODS: Using a previously published theoretical model for hospital mortality, the authors computed false positive (i.e., falsely classified as providing poor-quality care) and false negative (falsely classified as providing good-quality care) rates. First, they determined the cost functions for false negatives and false positives that are implicitly associated with the use of significance levels of 0.05 and 0.01 for identifying hospitals with higher than average mortality. Second, they determined the levels of statistical significance that should be chosen to minimize predefined cost functions, thus minimizing costs associated with misclassifying hospitals. RESULTS: The lower the statistical significance level required for identifying hospitals with higher than average mortality, the lower the implicit cost of false negatives compared to false positives. For a given significance level, the greater the number of patients treated at each hospital or the greater the proportion of truly poorly performing hospitals, the lower the value of the implicit cost incurred by a false negative compared to that for a false positive. For cost functions that put a high relative penalty on false negatives compared to false positives, the use of significance levels of 0.05 or 0.01 does not result in optimal decisions across expected number of patients treated at each hospital or proportions of truly poor-quality care. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital report cards that use significance levels of either 0.05 or 0.01 to identify hospitals that have statistically significantly higher than average mortality make implicit assumptions about cost functions, and the values of the optimal cost function vary across scenarios.

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)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.237
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.237
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.423 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Decision MakingSame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207