Multigenerational Health Research using Population-Based Linked Databases: An International Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family health history is a well-established risk factor for many health conditions but the systematic collection of health histories, particularly for multiple generations and multiple family members, can be challenging. Routinely-collected electronic databases in a select number of sites worldwide offer a powerful tool to conduct multigenerational health research for entire populations. At these sites, administrative and healthcare records are used to construct familial relationships and objectively-measured health histories. We review and synthesize published literature to compare the attributes of routinely-collected, linked databases for three European sites (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) and three non-European sites (Canadian province of Manitoba, Taiwan, Australian state of Western Australia) with the capability to conduct population-based multigenerational health research. Our review found that European sites primarily identified family structures using population registries, whereas non-European sites used health insurance registries (Manitoba and Taiwan) or linked data from multiple sources (Western Australia). Information on familial status was reported to be available as early as 1947 (Sweden); Taiwan had the fewest years of data available (1995 onwards). All centres reported near complete coverage of familial relationships for their population catchment regions. Challenges in working with these data include differentiating biological and legal relationships, establishing accurate familial linkages over time, and accurately identifying health conditions. This review provides important insights about the benefits and challenges of using routinely-collected, population-based linked databases for conducting population-based multigenerational health research, and identifies opportunities for future research within and across the data-intensive environments at these six sites.
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 | 0.025 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".