Generating synthetic data from administrative health records for drug safety and effectiveness studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Administrative health records (AHRs) are used to conduct population-based post-market drug safety and comparative effectiveness studies to inform healthcare decision making. However, the cost of data extraction, and the challenges associated with privacy and securing approvals can make it challenging for researchers to conduct methodological research in a timely manner using real data. Generating synthetic AHRs that reasonably represent the real-world data are beneficial for developing analytic methods and training analysts to rapidly implement study protocols. We generated synthetic AHRs using two methods and compared these synthetic AHRs to real-world AHRs. We described the challenges associated with using synthetic AHRs for real-world study. Methods: The real-world AHRs comprised prescription drug records for individuals with healthcare insurance coverage in the Population Research Data Repository (PRDR) from Manitoba, Canada for the 10-year period from 2008 to 2017. Synthetic data were generated using the Observational Medical Dataset Simulator II (OSIM2) and a modification (ModOSIM). Synthetic and real-world data were described using frequencies and percentages. Agreement of prescription drug use measures in PRDR, OSIM2 and ModOSIM was estimated with the concordance coefficient. Results: The PRDR cohort included 169,586,633 drug records and 1,395 drug types for 1,604,734 individuals. Synthetic data for 1,000,000 individuals were generated using OSIM2 and ModOSIM. Sex and age group distributions were similar in the real-world and synthetic AHRs. However, there were significant differences in the number of drug records and number of unique drugs per person for OSIM2 and ModOSIM when compared with PRDR. For the average number of days of drug use, concordance with the PRDR was 16% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12%-19%) for OSIM2 and 88% (95% CI: 87%-90%) for ModOSIM. Conclusions: ModOSIM data were more similar to PRDR than OSIM2 data on many measures. Synthetic AHRs consistent with those found in real-world settings can be generated using ModOSIM. Synthetic data will benefit rapid implementation of methodological studies and data analyst training.
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 | 0.035 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".