Fixed Effects High-Dimensional Profiling Models in Low Information Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Profiling or evaluation of health care providers, including hospitals or dialysis facilities, involves the application of hierarchical regression models to compare each provider's performance with respect to a patient outcome, such as unplanned 30-day hospital readmission. This is achieved by comparing a specific provider's estimate of unplanned readmission rate, adjusted for patient case-mix, to a normative standard, typically defined as an "average" national readmission rate across all providers. Profiling is of national importance in the United States because the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) policy for payment to providers is dependent on providers' performance, which is part of a national strategy to improve delivery and quality of patient care. Novel high dimensional fixed effects (FE) models have been proposed for profiling dialysis facilities and are more focused towards inference on the tail of the distribution of provider outcomes, which is well-suited for the objective of identifying sub-standard ("extreme") performance. However, the extent to which estimation and inference procedures for FE profiling models are effective when the outcome is sparse and/or when there are relatively few patients within a provider, referred to as the "low information" context, have not been examined. This scenario is common in practice when the patient outcome of interest is cause-specific 30-day readmissions, such as 30-day readmission due to infections in patients on dialysis, which is only about ~ 8% compared to the > 30% for all-cause 30-day readmission. Thus, we examine the feasibility and effectiveness of profiling models under the low information context in simulation studies and propose a novel correction method to FE profiling models to better handle sparse outcome 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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".