MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892008580 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i4.947

Meeting the challenge of data linkage for special populations

2018· article· en· W2892008580 on OpenAlexaff
Brent Hills

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinkage (software)Record linkagePopulationChristian ministryMedical recordIdentifierUnique identifierMedicineData setDemographyComputer scienceStatisticsBiologyEnvironmental healthGeneticsSurgeryMathematicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionA file’s overall linkage rate may hide significant bias in unlinked records. Newborns, for example, may represent a small percentage of a file but a large proportion of unlinked records. This creates challenges for researchers focused on the affected populations. Decreasing bias is a clear goal for data linkage science. Objectives and ApproachA standard spine-based linkage process with a typical set of identifiers was used to link perinatal records in British Columbia. This included multiple iterations and some manual linkage, stopping when there were only minor improvements. Despite high overall linkage rates, poor rates existed for babies who were stillborn or died near birth. Given research interests in stillbirth, there was a desire to use a creative approach to improve linkage for that sub-population. The solution was to expand the scope of the spine linkage to include birth and stillbirth records from other files, e.g. hospital discharge and Vital Statistics Registrations. ResultsOriginal linkage methods produce overall baby linkage rates of 98.1% but only 3.9% of records discharged to death/stillbirth were linked. Revised methods provide a small change in the overall rate to 99.4% but increase the discharge to death/stillbirth linkage rate to 90.3%. All numbers exclude terminations. Additions to our base representation of a linked entity enabled the association of records for babies either stillborn or never registered for health insurance coverage with the Ministry of Health. Additional variables addressed high rates of missing identifiers, while new linkage processing to Vital Statistics data addressed gaps within multiple newborn related datasets. Conclusion/ImplicationsThe complexity of adding BC Perinatal Data as a linked dataset to Population Data BC holdings was underappreciated. There are always adjustments in linkage approach across different data sets, but the linkage of babies with adverse outcomes required considerably more change, including moving beyond our usual spine linkage approach.

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)0.397
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.583
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3970.583
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.011
Scholarly communication0.0130.015
Open science0.0080.018
Research integrity0.0070.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.645
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.067 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207