A comparison between physicians and computer algorithms for form CMS‐2728 data reporting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: CMS-2728 form (Medical Evidence Report) assesses 23 comorbidities chosen to reflect poor outcomes and increased mortality risk. Previous studies questioned the validity of physician reporting on forms CMS-2728. We hypothesize that reporting of comorbidities by computer algorithms identifies more comorbidities than physician completion, and, therefore, is more reflective of underlying disease burden. METHODS: We collected data from CMS-2728 forms for all 296 patients who had incident ESRD diagnosis and received chronic dialysis from 2005 through 2014 at Indiana University outpatient dialysis centers. We analyzed patients' data from electronic medical records systems that collated information from multiple health care sources. Previously utilized algorithms or natural language processing was used to extract data on 10 comorbidities for a period of up to 10 years prior to ESRD incidence. These algorithms incorporate billing codes, prescriptions, and other relevant elements. We compared the presence or unchecked status of these comorbidities on the forms to the presence or absence according to the algorithms. FINDINGS: Computer algorithms had higher reporting of comorbidities compared to forms completion by physicians. This remained true when decreasing data span to one year and using only a single health center source. The algorithms determination was well accepted by a physician panel. Importantly, algorithms use significantly increased the expected deaths and lowered the standardized mortality ratios. DISCUSSION: Using computer algorithms showed superior identification of comorbidities for form CMS-2728 and altered standardized mortality ratios. Adapting similar algorithms in available EMR systems may offer more thorough evaluation of comorbidities and improve quality reporting.
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 | 0.066 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".