Derivation and Validation of the Surgical Site Infections Risk Model Using Health Administrative Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common hospital-acquired infections. Tracking SSIs is important to monitor their incidence, and this process requires primary data collection. In this study, we derived and validated a method using health administrative data to predict the probability that a person who had surgery would develop an SSI within 30 days. METHODS All patients enrolled in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) from 2 sites were linked to population-based administrative datasets in Ontario, Canada. We derived a multivariate model, stratified by surgical specialty, to determine the independent association of SSI status with patient and hospitalization covariates as well as physician claim codes. This SSI risk model was validated in 2 cohorts. RESULTS The derivation cohort included 5,359 patients with a 30-day SSI incidence of 6.0% (n=118). The SSI risk model predicted the probability that a person had an SSI based on 7 covariates: index hospitalization diagnostic score; physician claims score; emergency visit diagnostic score; operation duration; surgical service; and potential SSI codes. More than 90% of patients had predicted SSI risks lower than 10%. In the derivation group, model discrimination and calibration was excellent (C statistic, 0.912; Hosmer-Lemeshow [H-L] statistic, P=.47). In the 2 validation groups, performance decreased slightly (C statistics, 0.853 and 0.812; H-L statistics, 26.4 [P=.0009] and 8.0 [P=.42]), but low-risk patients were accurately identified. CONCLUSION Health administrative data can effectively identify postoperative patients with a very low risk of surgical site infection within 30 days of their procedure. Records of higher-risk patients can be reviewed to confirm SSI status.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".