Causal variance decompositions for institutional comparisons in healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing interest in comparing institutions delivering healthcare in terms of disease-specific quality indicators (QIs) that capture processes or outcomes showing variations in the care provided. Such comparisons can be framed in terms of causal models, where adjusting for patient case-mix is analogous to controlling for confounding, and exposure is being treated in a given hospital, for instance. Our goal here is to help identify good QIs rather than comparing hospitals in terms of an already chosen QI, and so we focus on the presence and magnitude of overall variation in care between the hospitals rather than the pairwise differences between any two hospitals. We consider how the observed variation in care received at patient level can be decomposed into that causally explained by the hospital performance adjusting for the case-mix, the case-mix itself, and residual variation. For this purpose, we derive a three-way variance decomposition, with particular attention to its causal interpretation in terms of potential outcome variables. We propose model-based estimators for the decomposition, accommodating different link functions and either fixed or random effect models. We evaluate their performance in a simulation study and demonstrate their use in a real data application.
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 | 0.080 | 0.205 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".