Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background:</h3> Various data sources may be used to document the presence of chronic medical conditions. This study examined the agreement between self-reported and health administrative data. <h3>Methods:</h3> A randomly selected cohort of participants aged 25-75 years recruited by telephone from the general population of Quebec reported on the presence of 1 or more chronic conditions from a candidate list of 12 conditions: diabetes, hypertension, thyroid disorder, any cardiac disease, cancer diagnosis in the previous 5 years (including melanoma but excluding other skin cancers), asthma, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or lupus, osteoporosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, intestinal disease and hypercholesterolemia. We also used health administrative data from Quebec9s universal health insurance provider to identify participants9 chronic conditions. Unique identifiers allowed linkage of both data sources to the individual participant. The frequencies of the 12 conditions and the prevalence of multimorbidity (≥ 2, ≥ 3 and ≥ 4 conditions) were analyzed for each data source. <h3>Results:</h3> We analyzed data for 1177 participants (mean age 53 [standard deviation 12.4] yr; 684 women [58.1%]). We found low (but varied) agreement between the 2 data sources, with the poorest agreement for hypercholesterolemia (κ = 0.04 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.07]) and the best for diabetes (κ = 0.82 [95% CI 0.76 to 0.88]). Prevalence estimates of multimorbidity obtained with health administrative data were lower than those obtained with self-reported data regardless of the operational definition used. Most participants with multimorbidity were identified by self-report. <h3>Interpretation:</h3> We argue for the use of self-reported chronic conditions in the study of multimorbidity, as health administrative data based on the billing system in Quebec seem to underestimate the prevalence of many chronic conditions, which results in biased estimates of multimorbidity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".