MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Incidence and Prevalence of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Lung Disease in a Large U.S. Managed Care Health Plan, 2008–2015

2019· article· en· W2995199373 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Winthrop, Theodore K. Marras, Jennifer Adjemian, Haixin Zhang, Ping Wang, Quanwu Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMycobacterium research and diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Nontuberculous mycobacteriaLung diseaseDiseaseHealth planIntensive care medicineEnvironmental healthHealth careLungInternal medicineTuberculosisPathologyMycobacterium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Estimating the annual incidence and prevalence of nontuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) lung disease may assist in improving understanding of the public health and economic impacts of this disease and its treatment. Objective To estimate the yearly incidence and prevalence of administrative claims–based NTM lung disease between 2008 and 2015 in a U.S. managed care claims database. Methods We used a national managed care claims database (Optum Clinformatics Data Mart) representing a geographically diverse population of approximately 27 million members annually. All medical claims from January 1, 2007, to June 30, 2016, were scanned for diagnosis codes for NTM lung disease (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 031.0 or ICD-10-CM code A31.0). We defined a case of NTM lung disease as having at least two medical claims with a code of 031.0 or A31.0 that were dated at least 30 days apart. Annual incidence and prevalence were estimated for each calendar year from 2008 to 2015. Results From 2008 to 2015, the annual incidence of NTM lung disease increased from 3.13 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.88–3.40) to 4.73 (95% CI, 4.43–5.05) per 100,000 person-years, and the annual prevalence increased from 6.78 (95% CI, 6.45–7.14) to 11.70 (95% CI, 11.26–12.16) per 100,000 persons. The average annual changes in incidence and prevalence were +5.2% (95% CI, 4.0–6.4%; P < 0.01) and +7.5% (95% CI, 6.7–8.2%; P < 0.01), respectively. For women, the annual incidence increased from 4.16 (95% CI, 3.76–4.60) to 6.69 (95% CI, 6.19–7.22) per 100,000 person-years, and the annual prevalence increased from 9.63 (95% CI, 9.08–10.22) to 16.78 (95% CI, 16.04–17.55) per 100,000 persons. For individuals aged 65 years or older, the annual incidence increased from 12.70 (95% CI, 11.46–14.07) to 18.37 (95% CI, 16.98–19.87) per 100,000 person-years, and the annual prevalence increased from 30.27 (95% CI, 28.41–32.24) to 47.48 (95% CI, 45.37–49.67) per 100,000 persons. The incidence and prevalence of NTM lung disease increased in most U.S. states and overall at the national level. Conclusions The incidence and prevalence of NTM lung disease appears to be increasing in the United States, particularly among women and older age groups.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations333
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicMycobacterium research and diagnosisFrench-language works237,207