External validation of a model using health administrative data to predict acetabular fracture probability: Brief report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyses using population-based health administrative data can return erroneous results if case identification is inaccurate ("misclassification bias"). An acetabular fracture (AF) prediction model using administrative data decreased misclassification bias compared to identifying AFs using diagnostic codes. This study measured the accuracy of this AF prediction model in another hospital. We calculated AF probability in all hospitalizations in the validation hospital between 2015 and 2020. A random sample of 1000 patients stratified by expected AF probability was selected. Patient imaging studies were reviewed to determine true AF status. The validation population included 1000 people. The AF prediction model was very discriminative (c-statistic 0.90, 95% CI: 0.87-0.92) and very well calibrated (integrated calibration index 0.056, 95% CI: 0.039-0.074). AF probability can be accurately determined using routinely collected health administrative data. This observation supports using the AF prediction model to minimize misclassification bias when studying AF using health administrative data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".