Comparing a multivariate response Bayesian random effects logistic regression model with a latent variable item response theory model for provider profiling on multiple binary indicators simultaneously
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Provider profiling entails comparing the performance of hospitals on indicators of quality of care. Many common indicators of healthcare quality are binary (eg, short-term mortality, use of appropriate medications). Typically, provider profiling examines the variation in each indicator in isolation across hospitals. We developed Bayesian multivariate response random effects logistic regression models that allow one to simultaneously examine variation and covariation in multiple binary indicators across hospitals. Use of this model allows for (i) determining the probability that a hospital has poor performance on a single indicator; (ii) determining the probability that a hospital has poor performance on multiple indicators simultaneously; (iii) determining, by using the Mahalanobis distance, how far the performance of a given hospital is from that of an average hospital. We illustrate the utility of the method by applying it to 10 881 patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction at 102 hospitals. We considered six binary patient-level indicators of quality of care: use of reperfusion, assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction, measurement of cardiac troponins, use of acetylsalicylic acid within 6 hours of hospital arrival, use of beta-blockers within 12 hours of hospital arrival, and survival to 30 days after hospital admission. When considering the five measures evaluating processes of care, we found that there was a strong correlation between a hospital's performance on one indicator and its performance on a second indicator for five of the 10 possible comparisons. We compared inferences made using this approach with those obtained using a latent variable item response theory model.
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 | 0.086 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".