The impact of lookback windows on the prevalence and incidence of chronic diseases among people living with HIV: an exploration in administrative health data in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We described the impact of different lengths of lookback window (LW), a retrospective time period to observe diagnoses in administrative data, on the prevalence and incidence of eight chronic diseases. METHODS: Our study populations included people living with HIV (N = 5151) and 1:5 age-sex-matched HIV-negative individuals (N = 25,755) in British Columbia, Canada, with complete follow-up between 1996 and 2012. We measured period prevalence and incidence of diseases in 2012 using LWs ranging from 1 to 16 years. Cases were deemed prevalent if identified in 2012 or within a defined LW, and incident if newly identified in 2012 with no previous cases detected within a defined LW. Chronic disease cases were ascertained using published case-finding algorithms applied to population-based provincial administrative health datasets. RESULTS: Overall, using cases identified by the full 16-year LW as the reference, LWs ≥8 years and ≥ 4 years reduced the proportion of misclassified prevalent and incidence cases of most diseases to < 20%, respectively. The impact of LWs varied across diseases and populations. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscored the importance of carefully choosing LWs and demonstrated data-driven approaches that may inform these choices. To improve comparability of prevalence and incidence estimates across different settings, we recommend transparent reporting of the rationale and limitations of chosen LWs.
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 | 0.020 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".