Use of healthcare claims to validate the Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial cardiac implantable electronic device infection risk score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT) infection risk score, developed based on a large prospectively collected data set, identified five independent predictors of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. We performed an independent validation of the risk score in a data set extracted from U.S. healthcare claims. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective identification of index CIED procedures among patients aged ≥18 years with at least one record of a CIED procedure between January 2011 and September 2014 in a U.S health claims database. PADIT risk factors and major CIED infections (with system removal, invasive procedure without system removal, or infection-attributable death) were identified through diagnosis and procedure codes. The data set was randomized by PADIT score into Data Set A (60%) and Data Set B (40%). A frailty model allowing multiple procedures per patient was fit using Data Set A, with PADIT score as the only predictor, excluding patients with prior CIED infection. A data set of 54 042 index procedures among 51 623 patients with 574 infections was extracted. Among patients with no history of prior CIED infection, a 1 unit increase in the PADIT score was associated with a relative 28% increase in infection risk. Prior CIED infection was associated with significant incremental predictive value (HR 5.66, P < 0.0001) after adjusting for PADIT score. A Harrell's C-statistic for the PADIT score and history of prior CIED infection was 0.76. CONCLUSION: The PADIT risk score predicts increased CIED infection risk, identifying higher risk patients that could potentially benefit from targeted interventions to reduce the risk of CIED infection. Prior CIED infection confers incremental predictive value to the PADIT score.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".