Towards international standardisation of the comorbidity index from hospital data in lung cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) identified significant international differences in lung cancer survival. Differing levels of comorbid disease across ICBP countries has been suggested as a potential explanation of this variation but, to date, no studies have quantified its impact. This study investigated whether comparable, robust comorbidity scores can be derived from the different routine population-based cancer datasets available in the ICBP jurisdictions and, if so, use them to quantify international variation in comorbidity and determine its influence on outcome. Methods: Linked population-based lung cancer registry and hospital discharge datasets were acquired from nine ICBP jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Norway and the United Kingdom (UK) providing a study population of 233,981 individuals. For each person in this cohort Charlson, Elixhauser and in-patient bed day comorbidity scores were derived relating to the four to 36 months prior to their lung cancer diagnosis. The scores were then compared to assess validity and to determine their feasibility of use in international survival comparisons. Results: It was feasible to generate the three comorbidity scores for each jurisdiction, which were found to have good content, face and concurrent validity between them. Predictive validity was limited and there was evidence that the reliability was questionable. Conclusion: The results presented here indicate that inter-jurisdictional comparability of recorded comorbidity was limited due to probable differences in coding and hospital admission practices in each area. Before the contribution of comorbidity on international differences in cancer survival can be investigated an internationally harmonised comorbidity index is required.
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 | 0.113 | 0.242 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".