MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Incidence and Early Outcomes of Heart Failure in Commercially Insured and Medicare Advantage Patients, 2006 to 2014

2016· article· en· W2373270107 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsey R. Sangaralingham, Nilay D. Shah, Xiaoxi Yao, Véronique L. Roger, Shannon M. Dunlay

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

H eart failure (HF) affects >5.7 million individuals in the United States 1 with 870 000 individuals newly diagnosed each year. 2 Previous epidemiological studies have demonstrated that the incidence of HF varies by race and ethnicity, with the highest incidence in blacks. [3][4]4][5] However, this association is partially mediated by differences in socioeconomic factors, 3 such as access to care, and whether differences extend to commercially insured populations requires examination.Furthermore, although the incidence of HF is known to increase with age, 6,7 younger individuals with HF remain understudied because several large epidemiological cohorts 8 and claims-based studies 6 are restricted to older individuals.Our goal was to address these gaps in knowledge by leveraging a large US insurance claims database, containing information from >100 million individuals enrolled in private and Medicare Advantage health plans.The objectives of this study were to evaluate the incidence of HF by age, sex, and race/ ethnicity and to examine differences in the rate of hospitalizations and office visits in the year after diagnosis. Methods and Results Data SourceWe conducted a retrospective analysis using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a large US commercial insurance database. 9The database comprises medical claims for individuals in all 50 states and of all ages and ethnic and racial groups. 10Medical claims include claims for professional (eg, physician), facility (eg, hospital), and outpatient prescription medication services.Pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the use of de-identified data does not require Institutional Review Board approval. Study PopulationWe included adult enrollees for whom a diagnosis of HF (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 428.XX, 402.X1, 404.X1, or 404.X3 6 appeared on a single inpatient claim between January 1, 2006 and April 1, 2014.We also included individuals with an HF diagnosis on at least 3 physician or outpatient claims on different days within 20 consecutive months. 6The incidence date was defined as the earliest discharge date of the qualifying inpatient claim or the latest service date of the qualifying outpatient claim.To ensure that enrollees had newly diagnosed HF, we required them to have at least 2 previous years of continuous medical coverage with no claim listing HF as a diagnosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207