MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606901347 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v1i1.72

Comparison of Risk Adjustment Methods in Patients with Liver Disease Using Electronic Medical Record

2017· article· en· W2606901347 on OpenAlexaff
Yuan Xu, Mingshan Lu, Elijah Dixon, Robert P. Myers, Ning Li, Hude Quan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAkaike information criterionMedicineCohortCirrhosisLiver diseaseLogistic regressionStatisticInternal medicineMedical recordEmergency medicineStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACTObjectiveRisk adjustment methods are widely used to compare quality of care or predict health outcome, but the optimal approach is unclear for liver disease. This study is to compare the performance of common risk adjustment methods for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with liver disease using Electronic Medical Record (EMR).
 ApproachThe EMR data was derived from Beijing YouAn Hospital between 2010 and 2015. 85,526 EMRs were included. Previously developed and validated automated EMR case definitions were applied to define the conditions including primary liver cancer, cirrhosis and other conditions included in Charlson, Elixhauser comorbidity algorithms, Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD). Logistic regression was conducted and C-statistic was obtained to compare the performance of the different methods for predicting in-hospital mortality. To eliminate the effect of the model complexity on model performance, we compared Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) of different methods (smaller AIC is better).
 ResultIn total, we included three liver diseases cohort: 7,178 Primary Liver Cancer (PLC) patients, 11,121 cirrhosis patients and 7,298 cirrhosis without PLC patient. For PLC cohort, C-statistics of these compared indexes ranged from 0.72 to 0.84; AIC was between 4312.3 and 5048.4. For cirrhosis cohort, C-statistics of these compared indexes ranged from 0.73 to 0.83; AIC was between 4952.1 and 5788.2. For cirrhosis without PLC cohort, C-statistics ranged from 0.73 to 0.84; AIC was between 2608.3 and 3240.5. It was consistent across the three cohorts that MELD + sodium (MELD_Na) score (a variant of MELD score) had the highest C-statistic and lowest AIC; CTP had the lowest C-statistic and highest AIC. Integrating Charlson Comorbidity to MELD_Na, C-statistic improved to 0.86 and AIC reduced.
 ConclusionAmong the compared risk adjustment methods, MELD_Na performed best for predicting in-hospital mortality among patients with PLC or cirrhosis using Chinese EMRs. Adding clinical information to comorbidity algorithms improved the performance of the model.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207