MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890638138 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i4.708

Methods for identifying health state transitions from administrative data: the case of metastasis in prostate cancer

2018· article· en· W2890638138 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicholas Mitsakakis, Karen E. Bremner, Ruth Croxford, Lusine Abrahamyan, Welson Ryan, Steven Carcone, Murray Krahn

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFalse positive paradoxBone metastasisMalignancyPopulationIdentification (biology)Prostate cancerCancerMetastasisMedical recordMedical prescriptionCancer registryData miningComputer scienceInternal medicineMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionHealth administrative data are a rich source of population-based information, useful for building state transition models for medical decision making. These models require identification of health state transitions and associated times. Indirect methods are needed to predict this information, as it is rarely available in administrative data. Objectives and ApproachWe considered a set of criteria to identify transitions to metastasis for prostate cancer patients in administrative data, utilizing dates of diagnostic and medical billing codes for secondary malignancy, palliative radiation therapy, chemotherapy and bone disorders or procedures. We evaluated the criteria using the true date of metastasis from medical charts of 195 patients linked to health care administrative data in Ontario, Canada. We also built a recursive partitioning tree to optimally combine these criteria and construct rules for identifying metastatic patients. For the evaluation, both misclassification and discrepancy between true and predicted dates for the true positives were considered. ResultsCriteria involving chemotherapy drugs or hospital visits with secondary malignancy ICD10 diagnosis gave the best results, with high sensitivity and specificity. Criteria involving bone related problems, radiation therapy or diagnosis of metastatic cancer in physician billing data were very specific but not sensitive. The criterion involving prescriptions for narcotics was sensitive but not specific. The fitted tree was parsimonious involving only two of the criteria, while improving the accuracy over individual criteria. Most criteria gave a “delayed” prediction, with criterion based on chemotherapy giving on average the smallest delay, as well as exhibiting the least variability. Criteria involving narcotics and bone related problems predicted metastasis date very prematurely, probably triggered by conditions other than prostate cancer. Conclusion/ImplicationsSeveral criteria from administrative databases satisfactorily classified prostate cancer patients with metastasis. A classification tree was built and improved the results over single criteria, demonstrating the added benefits in using advanced statistical learning methods for this task. However, “transition to metastasis” dates were predicted inaccurately, often with significant delay.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.341
GPT teacher head0.606
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207