Development and validation of a model to categorize cardiovascular cause of death using health administrative data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study objective: Develop and evaluate a model that uses health administrative data to categorize cardiovascular (CV) cause of death (COD). Design: Population-based cohort. Setting: Ontario, Canada. Participants: Decedents ≥ 40 years with known COD between 2008 and 2015 in the CANHEART cohort, split into derivation (2008 to 2012; n = 363,778) and validation (2013 to 2015; n = 239,672) cohorts. Main outcome measures: Model performance. COD was categorized as CV or non-CV with ICD-10 codes as the gold standard. We developed a logistic regression model that uses routinely collected healthcare administrative to categorize CV versus non-CV COD. We assessed model discrimination and calibration in the validation cohort. Results: The strongest predictors for CV COD were history of stroke, history of myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and CV hospitalization one month before death. In the validation cohort, the c-statistic was 0.80, the sensitivity 0.75 (95 % CI 0.74 to 0.75) and the specificity 0.71 (95 % CI 0.70 to 0.71). In the primary prevention validation sub-cohort, the c-statistic was 0.81, the sensitivity 0.71 (95 % CI 0.70 to 0.71) and the specificity 0.75 (95 % CI 0.75 to 0.75) while in the secondary prevention sub-cohort the c-statistic was 0.74, the sensitivity 0.81 (95 % CI 0.81 to 0.82) and the specificity 0.54 (95 % CI 0.53 to 0.54). Conclusion: Modelling approaches using health administrative data show potential in categorizing CV COD, though further work is necessary before this approach is employed in clinical studies.
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 | 0.028 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".