MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994067228

Developing a non-categorical measure of child health using administrative data.

2015· article· en· W2994067228 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rübab G. Arım, Dafna Kohen, Anne Guèvremont, Rochelle Garner, Anton R. Miller, Kimberlyn McGrail, Marni Brownell, Lucyna Lach, Peter Rosenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of ManitobaStatistics CanadaMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorical variableMedicineCohortHealth carePopulationFamily medicineGerontologyEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the potential of linked administrative data for research on child health. This analysis describes the application of a non-categorical survey-based tool, the Children with Special Health Care Needs (CSHCN) Screener, to administrative data. DATA AND METHODS: Five Screener items were applied to linked administrative health data from Population Data British Columbia. Hospital admissions and demographic and community characteristics for a cohort of children aged 6 to 10 in 2006 were examined to validate the use of these items. RESULTS: Overall, 17.5% of children were identified as CSHCN. An estimated 14% of children used more medical care and 5.2% had more functional limitations than is usual for children of the same age; 3.3% were prescribed long-term medication; 1.9% needed/received treatment or counselling; and 0.1% needed/received special therapy. Boys were more likely than girls to be identified as CSHCN. INTERPRETATION: With some limitations, the CSHCN Screener can be applied to Canadian administrative health 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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.804
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.275 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207