Developing a Standardized and Reusable Method to Link Distributed Health Plan Databases to the National Death Index: Methods Development Study Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Certain medications may increase the risk of death or death from specific causes (eg, sudden cardiac death), but these risks may not be identified in premarket randomized trials. Having the capacity to examine death in postmarket safety surveillance activities is important to the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) mission to protect public health. Distributed networks of electronic health plan databases used by the FDA to conduct multicenter research or medical product safety surveillance studies often do not systematically include death or cause-of-death information. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop reusable, generalizable methods for linking multiple health plan databases with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Death Index Plus (NDI+) data. METHODS: We will develop efficient administrative workflows to facilitate multicenter institutional review board (IRB) review and approval within a distributed network of 6 health plans. The study will create a distributed NDI+ linkage process that avoids sharing of identifiable patient information between health plans or with a central coordinating center. We will develop standardized criteria for selecting and retaining NDI+ matches and methods for harmonizing linked information across multiple health plans. We will test our processes within a use case comprising users and nonusers of antiarrhythmic medications. RESULTS: We will use the linked health plan and NDI+ data sets to estimate the incidences and incidence rates of mortality and specific causes of death within the study use case and compare the results with reported estimates. These comparisons provide an opportunity to assess the performance of the developed NDI+ linkage approach and lessons for future studies requiring NDI+ linkage in distributed database settings. This study is approved by the IRB at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care in Boston, MA. Results will be presented to the FDA at academic conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. CONCLUSIONS: This study will develop and test a reusable distributed NDI+ linkage approach with the goal of providing tested NDI+ linkage methods for use in future studies within distributed data networks. Having standardized and reusable methods for systematically obtaining death and cause-of-death information from NDI+ would enhance the FDA's ability to assess mortality-related safety questions in the postmarket, real-world setting. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/21811.
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 | 0.176 | 0.204 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.014 |
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".