MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255499790 · doi:10.1111/bjd.16749

Systematic review of atopic dermatitis disease definition in studies using routinely collected health data

2018· article· en· W4255499790 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M.P. Dizon, A.M. Yu, R.K. Singh, J. Wan, M.-M. Chren, C. Flohr, J. Silverberg, Duke-Robert Margolis, S.M. Langan, K. Abuabara

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtopic dermatitisMedicineMedical diagnosisMedical recordDiseaseDiagnosis codeMEDLINEFamily medicineHealth careDermatologyPathologySurgeryEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a skin disease that involves dry, itchy skin and scaly rashes. It is a common disease, especially in children, and is often simply referred to as ‘eczema’. In recent years, researchers have used medical records stored electronically and information from insurance claims to study AD. Because these databases are designed for clinical care and billing purposes and not explicitly for research, correctly identifying patients with AD in these data can be challenging. If patients are not correctly identified, studies using these databases may find misleading results. This study, conducted by a group of researchers from the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom, sought to find out how researchers identify patients with AD in data routinely collected by hospitals and health organizations. We systematically searched three large databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science) and identified 59 studies which used routinely collected data to find out how common AD is in different populations. We found that researchers identified patients with AD in a variety of different ways. For example, patients’ records are often given numerical codes to represent medical diagnoses, and researchers used different sets of codes. Researchers also varied in whether they used information about patients’ medications and number of hospital or clinic visits related to AD. In addition, researchers rarely showed that their approach to identifying AD patients was accurate. Results from studies of AD will be difficult to interpret and compare if researchers do not have reliable ways of identifying AD patients in electronic medical records and insurance claims. Going forward, more studies are needed to develop and test strategies for identifying AD patients in these types of data so that the approaches used by researchers will be standardized. The authors offer suggestions for how to describe the approaches so that they will be more comparable.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.119
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.119
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.010
Bibliometrics0.0260.026
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207