MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294243567 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v7i3.1782

Data on Patient Record Trajectory for Linkage (DataPRinT Linkage).

2022· article· en· W4294243567 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sumeet Kalia, Michelle Greiver, Frank Sullivan, Conrad Pow, Aziz Sheikh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinkage (software)Computer scienceData miningTable (database)Key (lock)Medical diagnosisProcess (computing)Medical recordHealth careRecord linkageInformation retrievalData scienceComputer securityMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The linkage of Electronic Medical Records, Administrative and other data sources is highly valuable for research and health system monitoring. Once linked, combined resources can be analyzed to provide the answers to a variety of health questions that otherwise could not be answered. However, legislative and administrative barriers, including lengthy processes for data sharing agreements, may preclude timely linkage which is a key requirement during pandemics. ObjectiveTo develop a method using a patient’s health trajectory to probabilistically link primary care Electronic Medical Record (EMR) data with administrative and other data, without the need to transfer large datasets or identifiable information. To determine the legislative feasibility, accuracy and validity of this linkage process. Study DesignIdentify data strings that do not directly identify patients and could be used as unique linkage variables. The data strings, which we are calling dataprints, are sufficiently similar over time in different databases. One example in Ontario, Canada, is the pattern of submitted health claims. For every patient seen by a family physician, there exists a unique pattern of dates/billing codes/diagnoses over time. These unique patterns are reasonably similar in EMR and administrative datasets. We will apply an algorithm which turns the string in the selected dataprints to an irreversibly hashed code for each person. The hashed code and no additional information will be provided by both data controllers to a trusted-third party who will determine which records match and send a mapping table to both. This enables analyses to be run in parallel, without divulging any direct person identifiers. DatasetIndividuals contained in the University of Toronto Practice Based Research Network (UTOPIAN). Outcome MeasuresLinkage quality will be assessed by the number of true matches and represented by sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values. ResultsThe method will be evaluated against a validated, deterministically linked reference standard at North York General Hospital using de-identified EMR and hospital data. Results will inform processes to enable analyses across datasets while adhering to privacy legislation.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.147
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.147
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0120.020
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.018

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 head0.431
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.081 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207