MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949045795 · doi:10.1097/ede.0000000000001015

Causal Mediation Analysis for Standardized Mortality Ratios

2019· article· en· W2949045795 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katherine Daignault, Keith A. Lawson, Antonio Finelli, Olli Saarela

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentrePublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMediationEstimatorHealth careCausal modelMedicineIntervention (counseling)Outcome (game theory)Standardized mortality ratioEconometricsPsychologyStatisticsCancerInternal medicineNursingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indirectly standardized mortality ratios (SMR) are often used to compare patient outcomes between health care providers as indicators of quality of care. Observed differences in the outcomes raise the question of whether these could be causally attributable to earlier processes or outcomes in the pathway of care that the patients received. Such pathways can be naturally addressed in a causal mediation analysis framework. Adopting causal mediation models allows the total provider effect on outcome to be decomposed into direct and indirect (mediated) effects. This in turn enables quantification of the improvement in patient outcomes due to a hypothetical intervention on the mediator. We formulate the effect decomposition for the indirectly standardized SMR when comparing to a health care system-wide average performance, propose novel model-based and semiparametric estimators for the decomposition, study the properties of these through simulations, and demonstrate their use through application to Ontario kidney cancer 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiologySame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207