Validity of Administrative Data in Identifying Cancer-related Events in Adolescents and Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of estimating population level cancer outcomes, most registries do not collect critical events such as relapse. Attempts to use health administrative data to identify these events have focused on older adults and have been mostly unsuccessful. We developed and tested administrative data-based algorithms in a population-based cohort of adolescents and young adults with cancer. METHODS: We identified all Ontario adolescents and young adults 15-21 years old diagnosed with leukemia, lymphoma, sarcoma, or testicular cancer between 1992-2012. Chart abstraction determined the end of initial treatment (EOIT) date and subsequent cancer-related events (progression, relapse, second cancer). Linkage to population-based administrative databases identified fee and procedure codes indicating cancer treatment or palliative care. Algorithms determining EOIT based on a time interval free of treatment-associated codes, and new cancer-related events based on billing codes, were compared with chart-abstracted data. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 1404 patients. Time periods free of treatment-associated codes did not validly identify EOIT dates; using subsequent codes to identify new cancer events was thus associated with low sensitivity (56.2%). However, using administrative data codes that occurred after the EOIT date based on chart abstraction, the first cancer-related event was identified with excellent validity (sensitivity, 87.0%; specificity, 93.3%; positive predictive value, 81.5%; negative predictive value, 95.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Although administrative data alone did not validly identify cancer-related events, administrative data in combination with chart collected EOIT dates was associated with excellent validity. The collection of EOIT dates by cancer registries would significantly expand the potential of administrative data linkage to assess cancer outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".