Merging Children’s Oncology Group Data with an External Administrative Database Using Indirect Patient Identifiers: A Report from the Children’s Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinical trials data from National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded cooperative oncology group trials could be enhanced by merging with external data sources. Merging without direct patient identifiers would provide additional patient privacy protections. We sought to develop and validate a matching algorithm that uses only indirect patient identifiers. METHODS: We merged the data from two Phase III Children's Oncology Group (COG) trials for de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with the Pediatric Health Information Systems (PHIS). We developed a stepwise matching algorithm that used indirect identifiers including treatment site, gender, birth year, birth month, enrollment year and enrollment month. Results from the stepwise algorithm were compared against the direct merge method that used date of birth, treatment site, and gender. The indirect merge algorithm was developed on AAML0531 and validated on AAML1031. RESULTS: Of 415 patients enrolled on the AAML0531 trial at PHIS centers, we successfully matched 378 (91.1%) patients using the indirect stepwise algorithm. Comparison to the direct merge result suggested that 362 (95.7%) matches identified by the indirect merge algorithm were concordant with the direct merge result. When validating the indirect stepwise algorithm using the AAML1031 trial, we successfully matched 157 out of 165 patients (95.2%) and 150 (95.5%) of the indirectly merged matches were concordant with the directly merged matches. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that patients enrolled on COG clinical trials can be successfully merged with PHIS administrative data using a stepwise algorithm based on indirect patient identifiers. The merged data sets can be used as a platform for comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness studies.
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 | 0.084 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; 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".