Is there an agreement between self-reported medical diagnosis in the CARTaGENE cohort and the Québec administrative health databases?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Population health studies often use existing databases that are not necessarily constituted for research purposes. The question arises as to whether different data sources such as in administrative health data (AHD) and self-report questionnaires are equivalent and lead to similar information. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to assess the level of agreement between self-reported medical conditions and medical diagnosis captured in AHD. A secondary objective was to identify predictors of agreement among medical conditions between the two data sources. Therefore, the purposes of the study were to explore the extent to which these two methods of commonly used public health data collection provide concordant records and identify the main predictors of statistical variations. METHODS: (RAMQ) and the fee-for-service billing records provided by the physician, for the time period 1998-2012. Agreement statistics (kappa coefficient) along with sensitivity, specificity and predictive positive value were calculated for 19 chronic conditions and 12 types of cancers. Logistic regressions were used to identify predictors of concordance between self-report and AHD from significant covariates (sex, age groups, education, region, income, heavy utilization of health care system and Charlson comorbidity index). RESULTS: Agreement between self-reported data and AHD across diseases ranged from kappa of 0.09 for chronic renal failure to 0.86 for type 2 diabetes. Sensitivity of self-reported data was higher than 50% for 14 out of the 31 medical conditions studied, especially for myocardial infarction (88.62%), breast cancer (86.28%), and diabetes (85.06%). Specificity was generally high with a minimum value of 89.70%. Lower concordance between data sources was observed for higher frequency of health care utilization and higher comorbidity scores. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was moderate agreement between the two data sources but important variations were found depending on the type of disease. This suggests that CARTaGENE's participants were generally able to correctly identify the kind of diseases they suffer from, with some exceptions. These results may help researchers choose adequate data sources according to specific study objectives. These results also suggest that Québec's AHD seem to underestimate the prevalence of some chronic conditions, which might result in inaccurate estimates of morbidity with consequences for public health surveillance.
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 | 0.031 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".