Lasso Regression for the Prediction of Intermediate Outcomes Related to Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Using the TRANSIT Quality Indicators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality are largely influenced by poor control of hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes. Process indicators are essential to monitor the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies. However, process indicators should be validated by demonstrating their ability to predict desirable outcomes. The objective of this study is to identify an effective method for building prediction models and to assess the predictive validity of the TRANSIT indicators. METHODS: On the basis of blood pressure readings and laboratory test results at baseline, the TRANSIT study population was divided into 3 overlapping subpopulations: uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled dyslipidemia, and uncontrolled diabetes. A classic statistical method, a sparse machine learning technique, and a hybrid method combining both were used to build prediction models for whether a patient reached therapeutic targets for hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes. The final models' performance for predicting these intermediate outcomes was established using cross-validated area under the curves (cvAUC). RESULTS: At baseline, 320, 247, and 303 patients were uncontrolled for hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, respectively. Among the 3 techniques used to predict reaching therapeutic targets, the hybrid method had a better discriminative capacity (cvAUCs=0.73 for hypertension, 0.64 for dyslipidemia, and 0.79 for diabetes) and succeeded in identifying indicators with a better capacity for predicting intermediate outcomes related to cardiovascular disease prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Even though this study was conducted in a complex population of patients, a set of 5 process indicators were found to have good predictive validity based on the hybrid method.
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 | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".