MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3156384351 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0249836

Estimating an individual-level deprivation index for HIV/HCV coinfected persons in Canada

2021· article· en· W3156384351 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Adam Palayew, Alexandra M. Schmidt, Sahar Saeed, Curtis Cooper, Alexander Wong, Valérie Martel‐Laferrière, Sharon Walmsley, Joseph Cox, Marina B. Klein

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of SaskatchewanMcGill University Health CentreCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalOttawa Hospital
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDalhousie UniversityViiV HealthcareGilead SciencesMcGill UniversityUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityStyrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete
KeywordsDemographyMedicinePopulationLogistic regressionIndex (typography)CohortMultilevel modelCovariateGerontologyCohort studyEnvironmental healthStatisticsInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: HIV-HCV coinfected individuals are often more deprived than the general population. However, deprivation is difficult to measure, often relying on aggregate data which does not capture individual heterogeneity. We developed an individual-level deprivation index for HIV-HCV co-infected persons that encapsulated social, material, and lifestyle factors. METHODS: We estimated an individual-level deprivation index with data from the Canadian Coinfection Cohort, a national prospective cohort study. We used a predetermined process to select 9 out of 19 dichotomous variables at baseline visit to include in the deprivation model: income >$1500/month; education >high school; employment; identifying as gay or bisexual; Indigenous status; injection drug use in last 6 months; injection drug use ever; past incarceration, and past psychiatric hospitalization. We fitted an item response theory model with: severity parameters (how likely an item was reported), discriminatory parameters, (how well a variable distinguished index levels), and an individual parameter (the index). We considered two models: a simple one with no provincial variation and a hierarchical model by province. The Widely Applicable Information Criterion (WAIC) was used to compare the fitted models. To showcase a potential utility of the proposed index, we evaluated with logistic regression the association of the index with non-attendance to a second clinic visit (as a proxy for disengagement) and using WAIC compared it to a model containing all the individual parameters that compose the index as covariates. RESULTS: We analyzed 1547 complete cases of 1842 enrolled participants. According to the WAIC the hierarchical model provided a better fit when compared to the model that does not consider the individual's province. Values of the index were similarly distributed across the provinces. Overall, past incarceration, education, and unemployment had the highest discriminatory parameters. However, in each province different components of the index were associated with being deprived reflecting local epidemiology. For example, Saskatchewan had the highest severity parameter for Indigenous status while Quebec the lowest. For the secondary analysis, 457 (30%) failed to attend a second visit. A one-unit increase in the index was associated with 17% increased odds (95% credible interval, 2% to 34%) of not attending a second visit. The model with just the index performed better than the model with all the components as covariates in terms of WAIC. CONCLUSION: We estimated an individual-level deprivation index in the Canadian Coinfection cohort. The index identified deprivation profiles across different provinces. This index and the methodology used may be useful in studying health and treatment outcomes that are influenced by social disparities in co-infected Canadians. The methodological approach described can be used in other studies with similar characteristics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→