Constructing inverse probability weights for institutional comparisons in healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In comparing quality of care between hospitals, disease-specific quality indicators measure structural, process, or outcome elements related to the care of a particular condition. Such comparisons can be framed in terms of causal contrasts, answering the question of whether a patient (or a population of patients on average) would receive different care if treated at the care level of a different hospital. Fair comparisons have to be adjusted for patient case-mix, which is equivalent to controlling for confounding by the patient-level factors, including demographic factors, comorbidities, and disease progression. The methodological choice for such comparisons is usually between direct and indirect standardization methods. In this article, we discuss the alternative of inverse probability weighting as a tool for standardization in hospital comparisons. This involves fitting multinomial logistic hospital assignment models and using these to construct the inverse probability weights. The challenge in the present context is the presence of large number of hospitals being compared, many of which have a small patient volume. We propose methods to include small categories in the weighted analysis, as well as metrics and visualizations for checking the positivity/overlap and covariate balance in constructing such weights. The methods are illustrated in a running example using linked administrative data on surgical treatment of kidney cancer patients in Ontario.
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 | 0.110 | 0.433 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".