MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385318549 · doi:10.2196/48636

The Australian Genetic Heart Disease Registry: Protocol for a Data Linkage Study

2023· article· en· W4385318549 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexandra Butters, Bianca Blanch, Anna Kemp, Judy Do, Laura Yeates, Felicity Leslie, Christopher Semsarian, Lee Nedkoff, Tom Briffa, Jodie Ingles, Joanna Sweeting

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilNSW Ministry of HealthNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Heart Foundation of Australia
KeywordsLinkage (software)Protocol (science)Record linkageDiseaseMedicineComputer sciencePopulationGeneticsAlternative medicineBiologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Genetic heart diseases such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy can cause significant morbidity and mortality, ranging from syncope, chest pain, and palpitations to heart failure and sudden cardiac death. These diseases are inherited in an autosomal dominant fashion, meaning family members of affected individuals have a 1 in 2 chance of also inheriting the disease ("at-risk relatives"). The health care use patterns of individuals with a genetic heart disease, including emergency department presentations and hospital admissions, are poorly understood. By linking genetic heart disease registry data to routinely collected health data, we aim to provide a more comprehensive clinical data set to examine the burden of disease on individuals, families, and health care systems. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to link the Australian Genetic Heart Disease (AGHD) Registry with routinely collected whole-population health data sets to investigate the health care use of individuals with a genetic heart disease and their at-risk relatives. This linked data set will allow for the investigation of differences in outcomes and health care use due to disease, sex, socioeconomic status, and other factors. METHODS: The AGHD Registry is a nationwide data set that began in 2007 and aims to recruit individuals with a genetic heart disease and their family members. In this study, demographic, clinical, and genetic data (available from 2007 to 2019) for AGHD Registry participants and at-risk relatives residing in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, were linked to routinely collected health data. These data included NSW-based data sets covering hospitalizations (2001-2019), emergency department presentations (2005-2019), and both state-wide and national mortality registries (2007-2019). The linkage was performed by the Centre for Health Record Linkage. Investigations stratifying by diagnosis, age, sex, socioeconomic status, and gene status will be undertaken and reported using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: NSW AGHD Registry participants were linked to routinely collected health data sets using probabilistic matching (November 2019). Of 1720 AGHD Registry participants, 1384 had linkages with 11,610 hospital records, 7032 emergency department records, and 60 death records. Data assessment and harmonization were performed, and descriptive data analysis is underway. CONCLUSIONS: We intend to provide insights into the health care use patterns of individuals with a genetic heart disease and their at-risk relatives, including frequency of hospital admissions and differences due to factors such as disease, sex, and socioeconomic status. Identifying disparities and potential barriers to care may highlight specific health care needs (eg, between sexes) and factors impacting health care access and use. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/48636.

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.011

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 head0.437
GPT teacher head0.604
Teacher spread0.167 · 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
GenreProtocol

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→