Methodological issues for measuring pharmacotherapy treatment and its calibration with patient outcomes using real-world data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionHealth system and administrative data sources, although collected for process/procedural healthcare use, have recently been leveraged for research purposes. Complex methodologies such as data linkages, defined algorithms, and proxy measures are needed to validate the use of these data. Alberta has exceptionally rich health system data to be explored. Objectives and ApproachOur objectives were to explore data sources in Alberta regarding pharmacotherapy treatments, patient outcomes, and develop methods to calibrate associations. We scoped data sources for pharmacotherapy treatment and patient outcomes in Alberta, Canada. Using a cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) as an example, we developed algorithms to measure medication possession ratio (MPR), proportion of days covered (PDC), and treatment discontinuation (TD). Patient outcomes included: ambulatory care visits, physician claims and hospitalizations. We explored different algorithms for statistical modeling of patient treatments and outcomes. Optimal cut-points and statistical model performance of MPR/PDC and TD with patient outcomes were evaluated. ResultsWe utilized six Albertan data sources to examine treatment patterns and patient outcomes. From the year 2000, the pharmaceutical information network (PIN) and Alberta Blue Cross drug datasets collected: service dates, dosages, drug identification numbers, anatomical therapeutic chemical classification codes, and days of supplies; which were used to calculate MPR, PDC and TD. MPR and PDC were calculated using three different methods: (1) fixed follow-up period; (2) with and without last fill; and (3) adjustment for hospitalization periods. No significant differences between methods were found. In addition, TD using 60- and 90-day gaps, while considering the medication day supplies, were calculated. Adherence with optimal cut-point 0.8 of MPR/PDC and TD were significantly associated with ambulatory care visits, physician claims, and hospitalizations (p=0.000; C-statistic range: 0.78-0.89). Conclusion/ImplicationsThe PIN data can be utilized for measuring pharmacotherapy treatment in patient outcomes research. To understand the impact of therapies on outcomes in a real-world setting, however, comprehensive methods for measuring treatment indicators as well as patient outcomes should be developed to control for inherent biases in observational 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 | 0.403 | 0.625 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".