Trend control charts for multiple sclerosis case definitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The validity of chronic disease case definitions for administrative health data may change over time due to changes in data quality. Trend control charts to identify out-of-control (OOC; i.e., unexpected) observations in a time series may indicate where disease estimates are influenced by changes in data quality. Objective: Apply and compare trend control charts methods for multiple sclerosis (MS) incidence and prevalence estimates using previously-validated case definitions for Manitoba, Canada. Methods: Eight case definitions were identified from published literature and applied to Manitoba administrative health data from January 1, 1972 to December 31, 2018. Incidence and prevalence trends were modeled using negative binomial and generalized estimating equation models, respectively. Trend control charts were used to plot predicted case counts against observed case counts. Control limits to identify OOC observations were calculated using two methods: predicted case count ±0.8*standard deviation (0.8*SD) and predicted case count ±2*standard deviation (2*SD). Differences in proportion of OOC observations across case definitions was assessed using McNemar's test. Results: The proportion of OOC observations ranged from 0.71 to 0.90 for incidence and 0.72 to 0.98 for prevalence when using the 0.8*SD control limits. A lower proportion of OOC observations (0.46 to 0.74 for incidence; 0.30 to 0.74 for prevalence) was observed for the 2*SD control limits. Neither method resulted in significant differences in OOC observations across case definitions. Conclusions: The proportion of OOC observations in trend control charts varied with the control limit method adopted, but statistical significance did not. Trend control charts are a potentially useful tool for developing surveillance methods, but may benefit from disease-specific calibrated control limits.
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 | 0.044 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".