MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2606606623 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v1i1.382

Improving the Accuracy of Length of stay Risk Adjustment Models using Linked Data

2017· article· en· W2606606623 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tolulope T. Sajobi, Mingshan Lu, Jason Jiang, Hude Quan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionOddsAnginaOdds ratioRelative riskMedical recordDemographyConfidence intervalMyocardial infarctionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT BackgroundHospital length of stay (LOS) is a widely used measure for assessing cross-jurisdiction health system performance and informs resource allocation decisions. However, the accuracy of existing LOS risk adjustment models are limited, because they are mostly derived from administrative data, which mostly contain clinical/diagnostic information but lack detailed information on relevant demographic, socio-economic (SES), and self-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) risk factors, which have been shown to improve the accuracy of LOS risk adjustment models. The study investigates the relative contribution of demographic, socio-economic, and health status risk factors derived through data linkage in improving the accuracy of LOS risk adjustment models. MethodsPopulation-based data on 8000 individuals hospitalized for coronary heart disease were obtained from Alberta Provincial Project on Outcomes Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) registry and linked to Alberta Discharge Abstract Database (DAD). SES was measured using multi-domain measure of SES derived from area-level census information, while the health-related quality of life outcome was measured using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire. LOS risk adjustment model based on hierarchical logistic regression models was developed to assess relative impact of each SES measure and HRQOL measure improving the predictive accuracy of LOS adjustment models. The relative impact of each predictor was assessed by its adjusted odds ratio (OR) and improvement over the predictive accuracy of a reference model that included patients’ clinical risk factors only. ResultMore than 80% of the hospitalized individuals had prolonged LOS more than 10 days. The HRQOL and single-domain measures of SES had significant impact in accurately predicting LOS. But the inclusion of the multi-domain measure SES did not significantly improve the accuracy of LOS risk adjustment models ConclusionUsing large population-based Canadian data, our study suggests that the inclusion of patients’ SES and health status information through data linkage can improve the accuracy of LOS risk adjustment models. The development of more accurate risk adjustment models can aid the identification of individuals at risk of prolonged LOS and comparison of health system performance across several cross-jurisdictions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.148
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.148
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.415
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data Science→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→