Comparison of Risk Adjustment Methods in Patients with Liver Disease Using Electronic Medical Record
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.019 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".