Handling coarsened age information in the analysis of emergency department presentations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Administrative databases offer vast amounts of data that provide opportunities for cost-effective insights. They simultaneously pose significant challenges to statistical analysis such as the redaction of data because of privacy policies and the provision of data that may not be at the level of detail required. For example, ages in years rather than birthdates available at event dates can pose challenges to the analysis of recurrent event data. METHODS: Hu and Rosychuk provided a strategy for estimating age-varying effects in a marginal regression analysis of recurrent event times when birthdates are all missing. They analyzed emergency department (ED) visits made by children and youth and privacy rules prevented all birthdates to be released, and justified their approach via a simulation and asymptotic study. With recent changes in data access rules, we requested a new extract of data for April 2010 to March 2017 that includes patient birthdates. This allows us to compare the estimates using the Hu and Rosychuk (HR) approach for coarsened ages with estimates under the true, known ages to further examine their approach numerically. The performance of the HR approach under five scenarios is considered: uniform distribution for missing birthdates, uniform distribution for missing birthdates with supplementary data on age, empirical distribution for missing birthdates, smaller sample size, and an additional year of data. RESULTS: Data from 33,299 subjects provided 58,166 ED visits. About 67% of subjects had one ED visit and less than 9% of subjects made over three visits during the study period. Most visits (84.0%) were made by teenagers between 13 and 17 years old. The uniform distribution and the HR modeling approach capture the main trends over age of the estimates when compared to the known birthdates. Boys had higher ED visit frequencies than girls in the younger ages whereas girls had higher ED visit frequencies than boys for the older ages. Including additional age data based on age at end of fiscal year did not sufficiently narrow the widths of potential birthdate intervals to influence estimates. The empirical distribution of the known birthdates was close to a uniform distribution and therefore, use of the empirical distribution did not change the estimates provided by assuming a uniform distribution for the missing birthdates. The HR approach performed well for a smaller sample size, although estimates were less smooth when there were very few ED visits at some younger ages. When an additional year of data is added, the estimates become better at these younger ages. CONCLUSIONS: Overall the Hu and Rosychuk approach for coarsened ages performed well and captured the key features of the relationships between ED visit frequency and covariates.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".