Inconsistency in UK Biobank Event Definitions From Different Data Sources and Its Impact on Bias and Generalizability: A Case Study of Venous Thromboembolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The UK Biobank study contains several sources of diagnostic data, including hospital inpatient data and data on self-reported conditions for approximately 500,000 participants and primary-care data for approximately 177,000 participants (35%). Epidemiologic investigations require a primary disease definition, but whether to combine data sources to maximize statistical power or focus on only 1 source to ensure a consistent outcome is not clear. The consistency of disease definitions was investigated for venous thromboembolism (VTE) by evaluating overlap when defining cases from 3 sources: hospital inpatient data, primary-care reports, and self-reported questionnaires. VTE cases showed little overlap between data sources, with only 6% of reported events for persons with primary-care data being identified by all 3 sources (hospital, primary-care, and self-reports), while 71% appeared in only 1 source. Deep vein thrombosis-only events represented 68% of self-reported VTE cases and 36% of hospital-reported VTE cases, while pulmonary embolism-only events represented 20% of self-reported VTE cases and 50% of hospital-reported VTE cases. Additionally, different distributions of sociodemographic characteristics were observed; for example, patients in 46% of hospital-reported VTE cases were female, compared with 58% of self-reported VTE cases. These results illustrate how seemingly neutral decisions taken to improve data quality can affect the representativeness of a data set.
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 | 0.282 | 0.567 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".