Using A Privacy Preserving Record Linkage to Facilitate an Ongoing Crosswalk Between Research and Health Administrative Databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionThe Ontario Brain Institute has developed Brain-CODE, an informatics platform designed to support the collection, storage, federation, sharing and analysis of different neuroscience research data types across several brain disorders. Linking such “deep” research data with “broad” health administrative data allows for improved characterization of disorders and supports the development of related health and social policies (Anderson et al., 2015). A privacy preserving record linkage protocol, developed through the Indoc Consortium, has been used to facilitate such linkages between Brain-CODE and administrative data holdings at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES; e.g., emergency department use, inpatient records, prescription drug utilization) (Gee et al., 2018). Objectives and ApproachThree linkage pilots in the areas of neurodevelopmental disorders, epilepsy, and stroke research have been completed with >99% success match rates across all projects. However, each of these projects required a significant amount of human and computational resources to complete. With other similar data linkages being planned, it was determined that a more permanent solution was required rather than completing linkages on a project-by-project basis. The governance and technical elements to support the creation and maintenance of such a crosswalk between Brain-CODE and ICES were reviewed with an implementation plan subsequently developed. Results:A methodology for creating a crosswalk between Brain-CODE and ICES has been established. The same privacy preserving record linkage protocol, as used in the previous linkage pilots, will support the creation of this crosswalk. A plan has been established to update this crosswalk annually to account for new study participants on Brain-CODE. Conclusion / ImplicationsThe creation of this crosswalk will allow for a more streamlined approach of data linkage between Brain-CODE and ICES. Such an approach can significantly reduce overall resourcing requirements, enable more efficient data linkages, and contribute to the coupling of “broad” and “deep” data.
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 | 0.187 | 0.226 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
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".