Comparing external and internal validation methods in correcting outcome misclassification bias in logistic regression: A simulation study and application to the case of postsurgical venous thromboembolism following total hip and knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed the validity of postsurgery venous thromboembolism (VTE) diagnoses identified from administrative databases and compared Bayesian and multiple imputation (MI) approaches in correcting for outcome misclassification in logistic regression models. METHODS: Sensitivity and specificity of postsurgery VTE among patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement (THR/TKR) were assessed against chart review in six Montreal hospitals in 2009 to 2010. Administrative data on all THR/TKR Quebec patients in 2009 to 2010 were obtained. The performance of Bayesian external, Bayesian internal, and MI approaches to correct the odds ratio (OR) of postsurgery VTE in tertiary versus community hospitals was assessed using simulations. Bayesian external approach used prior information from external sources, while Bayesian internal and MI approaches used chart review. RESULTS: In total, 17 319 patients were included, 2136 in participating hospitals, among whom 75 had VTE in administrative data versus 81 in chart review. VTE sensitivity was 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.69) and specificity was 0.99 (0.98-0.99), overall. The adjusted OR of VTE in tertiary versus community hospitals was 1.35 (1.12-1.64) using administrative data, 1.45 (0.97-2.19) when MI was used for misclassification correction, and 1.53 (0.83-2.87) and 1.57 (0.39-5.24) when Bayesian internal and external approaches were used, respectively. In simulations, all three approaches reduced the OR bias and had appropriate coverage for both nondifferential and differential misclassification. CONCLUSION: VTE identified from administrative data had low sensitivity and high specificity. The Bayesian external approach was useful to reduce outcome misclassification bias in logistic regression; however, it required accurate specification of the misclassification properties and should be used with caution.
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 | 0.161 | 0.306 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".