Using electronic health record data to establish a chronic kidney disease surveillance system in China: protocol for the China Kidney Disease Network (CK-NET)-Yinzhou Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an important public health problem worldwide. However, there are few active disease surveillance systems for it. The China Kidney Disease Network (CK-NET) was established as a comprehensive surveillance system for CKD using various data sources. As part of this, the proposed CK-NET-Yinzhou study aims to build a regional surveillance system in a developed coastal area in China to obtain detailed dynamic information about kidney disease and to improve the ability to manage the disease effectively. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Yinzhou is a district of Ningbo city, Zhejiang province. The district has a population of more than 1 million. By 2016, 98% were registered in a regional health information system that started in 2009. This system includes administrative databases containing general demographic characteristics, health check information, inpatient and outpatient electronic medical records, health insurance information, disease surveillance and management information, and death certificates. We will use longitudinal individual electronic health record data to identify people with CKD by repeated laboratory measurements and diagnostic codes. We will also evaluate the associated risk factors, prognosis and disease management. An intelligent clinical decision support system (CDSS) will be developed based on clinical guidelines, domain expert knowledge and real-world data, and will be integrated into the hospital information system. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The CK-NET-Yinzhou study has been reviewed and approved by the Peking University First Hospital Ethics Committee. Privacy of local residents registered with the health information system will be tightly protected through the study process. The findings of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles, posters and presentations in national and international scientific conferences, as well as among local practitioners through the CDSS.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Protocol for a kidney disease surveillance system built on health records; health surveillance infrastructure, not research infrastructure.
The protocol concerns a chronic-kidney-disease surveillance system and clinical decision support.
Protocol for CKD surveillance using Chinese EHR data is clinical epidemiology infrastructure, not study of research systems.
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 | 0.060 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".