Performance of Comorbidity Scores to Control for Confounding in Epidemiologic Studies using Claims Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comorbidity is an important confounder in epidemiologic studies. The authors compared the predictive performance of comorbidity scores for use in epidemiologic research with administrative databases. Study participants were British Columbia, Canada, residents aged >or=65 years who received angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or calcium channel blockers at least once during the observation period. Six scores were computed for all 141,161 participants during the baseline year (1995-1996). Endpoints were death and health care utilization during a 12-month follow-up (1996-1997). Performance was measured by using the c statistic ranging from 0.5 for chance prediction of outcome to 1.0 for perfect prediction. In logistic regression models controlling for age and gender, four scores based on the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) generally performed better at predicting 1-year mortality (c = 0.771, c = 0.768, c = 0.745, c = 0.745) than medication-based Chronic Disease Score (CDS)-1 and CDS-2 (c = 0.738, c = 0.718). Number of distinct medications used was the best predictor of future physician visits (R(2) = 0.121) and expenditures (R(2) = 0.128) and a good predictor of mortality (c = 0.745). Combining ICD-9 and medication-based scores improved the c statistics (1.7% and 6.2%, respectively) for predicting mortality. Generalizability of results may be limited to an elderly, predominantly White population with equal access to state-funded health care.
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 | 0.100 | 0.295 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".