Identifying hospitalization episodes of care among people with and without HIV in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundHospitalizations are a resource-intensive form of healthcare use, particularly for persons with chronic conditions such as those with HIV. Interhospital transfers typically appear as separate records in Canadian databases; misclassifying transfers as independent hospitalizations can bias key metrics such as readmission rates. We examined approaches of combining sequential, related records into hospitalization episodes of care (HEoCs) among persons with and without HIV (PWH; PWoH) in British Columbia (BC), Canada. MethodsBC hospitalization records (1992 to 2020) were sourced from the Comparative Outcomes and Service Utilization Trends (COAST) study, a data linkage that includes samples of PWH and PWoH. We constructed 8 HEoC definitions that varied by the: a) time gap between records, and b) transfer indication. Comparisons were informed by the proportion of multi-record HEoCs (mHEoCs; episodes with multiple hospitalization records) generated, and feasibility given data quality. ResultsWe analyzed 98,553 hospitalization records from 13,498 PWH, and 1,874,507 hospitalization records from 385,011 PWoH. Across the definitions, the proportion of mHEoCs varied from 2.46% to 5.27% for PWH and 2.73% to 4.18% for PWoH. Definitions requiring no transfer indication yielded the highest proportion of mHEoCs, whereas those requiring two-way agreement of hospital identifiers yielded the lowest proportion of mHEoCs. Patterns were comparable among PWH and PWoH. A pragmatic approach to defining HEoCs can be a reasonable option for general purposes – requiring at least one populated hospital identifier field, and ≤ 1 day gap between hospitalizations. ConclusionsVarious approaches can be employed to combine sequential, related hospitalization records into HEoCs to help provide less biased estimates of hospitalization-related metrics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".