The value of complementing administrative data with abstracted information on smoking and obesity: A study in kidney cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Variables, such as smoking and obesity, are rarely available in administrative databases. We explored the added value of including these data in an administrative database study evaluating the association of statin use with survival in kidney cancer. METHODS: We linked administrative data with chart-abstracted data on smoking and obesity for 808 patients undergoing nephrectomy for kidney cancer. Base models consisted of variables from administrative databases (age, sex, year of surgery, and different measures of comorbidity [to compare their sensitivity to smoking and obesity data]); extended models added chart-abstracted data. We compared coefficients for statin use with overall (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS), and used the c-statistic and net reclassification improvement (NRI) to compare predications of five-year survival obtained from Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: The coefficient for statin use changed minimally following addition of abstracted data (<6% for OS, <2% for CSS). Base models performed similarly for OS, with c-statistics of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.79) for Charlson score and 0.73 (95% CI 0.69-0.78) for John Hopkins Aggregated Diagnosis Groups score. After including abstracted data, c-statistics modestly improved (change <0.02); CSS demonstrated similar findings. NRIs were 0.210 (95% CI 0.062-0.297) and 0.186 (-0.031-0.387) when using the Charlson score, and 0.207 (0.068-0.287) and 0.197 (0.007-0.399) when using the Aggregated Diagnosis Groups score, for OS and CSS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of data on smoking and obesity marginally influences survival models in kidney cancer studies using administrative data.
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 | 0.043 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".