The use of funnel plots with regression as a tool to visually compare HIV treatment outcomes between centres adjusting for patient characteristics and size: a UK Collaborative HIV Cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A measure used for assessing the effectiveness of HIV care and comparing clinical centres is the proportion of people starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) with viral suppression (VS) after 1 year. We propose a method that adjusts for patients' demographic characteristics, and visually compares this measure between different sites accounting for centre size. METHODS: We analysed viral load measurements for UK Collaborative HIV Cohort (UK CHIC) patients starting ART between 2006 and 2013. We used logistic regression to estimate the proportion with VS after 1 year of ART adjusted for patient mix (in terms of age and a combined gender/ethnicity/acquisition mode variable) and calendar year. We compared outcomes between centres using funnel plots which account for centre size. RESULTS: The overall proportion of the cohort with VS 1 year after starting ART was 90% and increased from 83% to 93% between 2006 and 2013. VS was lower in younger individuals. White men who have sex with men (MSM) had the highest (94%), and black African (81%) and white (82%) heterosexual women the lowest proportions achieving VS. Comparing the unadjusted funnel plot with the adjusted, there were movements of some centres from outside to inside the 95% contour limits, which was largely explained by the patient mix of these centres. CONCLUSIONS: VS 1 year after ART start was associated with demographic characteristics and centre size; therefore, to compare the performances of centres, adjustment for these factors is required. Adjusted funnel plot is an effective tool which accounts for both the demographic characteristics and the centre size. Social factors, rather than treatment decisions within the control of the centres, may drive differences in 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".