MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389520420 · doi:10.1101/2023.12.08.23299740

Use of a Single Case-Finding Questionnaire to Simultaneously Target Multiple Related Diseases Allows Enhanced Disease Detection

2023· preprint· en· W4389520420 on OpenAlexafffund
Shawn D. Aaron, Chau Huynh, George A. Whitmore

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaCOPDCohortPopulationDiseaseRandom digit dialingCohort studyPhysical therapyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To develop a research methodology to apply a single case-finding tool to multiple related diseases and to evaluate the ability of a single tool to detect two or more related chronic diseases. Methods Adults in the community with no prior history of physician-diagnosed lung disease who self-reported respiratory symptoms were contacted via random-digit dialing. Multiple risk scores, one for asthma and one for COPD, were developed using data from a single case-finding questionnaire administered to the study population. Each score was statistically optimized for targeted detection of cases having one disease in the class. External validation of tandem risk scores was prospectively conducted in an independent sample and predictive performance re-evaluated. Results Sensitivity for detection of asthma improved from 87% using single risk scores to 96% using tandem risk scores, and sensitivity for detection of COPD similarly improved from 87% to 99%. In the independent validation cohort, case-finding sensitivities increased from 64% and 59% using single risk scores to 95% and 96% using tandem risk scores for asthma and for COPD, respectively. Conclusions Use of a single questionnaire which incorporates risk scores for multiple diseases considered in tandem, rather than individually, enhances the yield of cases detected when compared with one-at-a-time application of risk scores for case discovery. Benefits include greater efficiency in case-finding and improved sensitivities for detection of each disease. What is New? We describe case finding in a population of undiagnosed, symptomatic subjects who have one disease from a class of related chronic diseases. Multiple risk scores are developed using data from a single case-finding instrument administered to a representative sample from the study population. Each score is statistically optimized for targeted detection of cases having one disease in the class. Use of multiple risk scores, when considered in tandem, enhances the yield of cases detected when compared with one-at-a-time application of risk scores for case discovery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionFrench-language works237,207