Linking Spinal Cord Injury Data Sets to Describe the Patient Journey Following Injury: A Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To optimize traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) care, administrative and clinical linked data are required to describe the patient's journey. OBJECTIVES: To describe the methods and progress to deterministically link SCI data from multiple databases across the SCI continuum in British Columbia (BC) and Ontario (ON) to answer epidemiological and health service research questions. METHODS: Patients with tSCI will be identified from the administrative Hospital Discharge Abstract Database using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes from Population Data BC and ICES data repositories in BC and ON, respectively. Admissions for tSCI will range between 1995-2017 for BC and 2009-2017 for ON. Linkage will occur with multiple administrative data holdings from Population Data BC and ICES to create the "Admin SCI Cohorts." Clinical data from the Rick Hansen SCI Registry (and VerteBase in BC) will be transferred to Population Data BC and ICES. Linkage of the clinical data with the incident cases and administrative data at Population Data BC and ICES will create subsets of patients referred to as the "Clinical SCI Cohorts" for BC and ON. Deidentified patient-level linked data sets will be uploaded to a secure research environment for analysis. Data validation will include several steps, and data analysis plans will be created for each research question. DISCUSSION: The creation of provincially linked tSCI data sets is unique; both clinical and administrative data are included to inform the optimization of care across the SCI continuum. Methods and lessons learned will inform future data-linking projects and care initiatives.
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 | 0.182 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.015 |
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".