Application of multiple testing procedures for identifying relevant comorbidities, from a large set, in traumatic brain injury for research applications utilizing big health-administrative data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Multiple testing procedures (MTP) are gaining increasing popularity in various fields of biostatistics, especially in statistical genetics. However, in injury surveillance research utilizing the growing amount and complexity of health-administrative data encoded in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10), few studies involve MTP and discuss their applications and challenges. Objective: We aimed to apply MTP in the population-wide context of comorbidity preceding traumatic brain injury (TBI), one of the most disabling injuries, to find a subset of comorbidity that can be targeted in primary injury prevention. Methods: In total, 2,600 ICD-10 codes were used to assess the associations between TBI and comorbidity, with 235,003 TBI patients, on a matched data set of patients without TBI. McNemar tests were conducted on each 2,600 ICD-10 code, and appropriate multiple testing adjustments were applied using the Benjamini-Yekutieli procedure. To study the magnitude and direction of associations, odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were constructed. Results: Benjamini-Yekutieli procedure captured 684 ICD-10 codes, out of 2,600, as codes positively associated with a TBI event, reducing the effective number of codes for subsequent analysis and comprehension. Conclusion: Our results illustrate the utility of MTP for data mining and dimension reduction in TBI research utilizing big health-administrative data to support injury surveillance research and generate ideas for injury prevention.
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 | 0.081 | 0.316 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".