Influence of Using Different Databases and ‘Look Back’ Intervals to Define Comorbidity Profiles for Patients with Newly Diagnosed Hypertension: Implications for Health Services Researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the data sources and 'look back' intervals to define comorbidities. DATA SOURCES: Hospital discharge abstracts database (DAD), physician claims, population registry and death registry from April 1, 1994 to March 31, 2010 in Alberta, Canada. STUDY DESIGN: Newly-diagnosed hypertension cases from 1997 to 2008 fiscal years were identified and followed up to 12 years. We defined comorbidities using data sources and duration of retrospective observation (6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years). The C-statistics for logistic regression and concordance index (CI) for Cox model of mortality and cardiovascular disease hospitalization were used to evaluate discrimination performance for each approach of defining comorbidities. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The comorbidities prevalence became higher with a longer duration. Using DAD alone underestimated the prevalence by about 75%, compared to using both DAD and physician claims. The C-statistic and CI were highest when both DAD and physician claims were used, and model performance improved when observation duration increased from 6 months to one year or longer. CONCLUSION: The comorbidities prevalence is greatly impacted by the data source and duration of retrospective observation. A combination of DAD and physicians claims with at least one year observation duration improves predictions for cardiovascular disease and one-year mortality outcome model performance.
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 | 0.127 | 0.360 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".