Using multi-level regression to determine associations and estimate causes and effects in clinical anesthesia due to patient, practitioner and hospital or health system practice variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research methods tutorial of clinical anesthesia, we will explore techniques to estimate the influence of a myriad of factors on patient outcomes. Big data that contain information on patients, treated by individual anesthesiologists and surgical teams, at different hospitals, have an inherent multi-level data structure (Fig. 1). While researchers often attempt to determine the association between patient factors and outcomes, that does not provide clinicians with the whole story. Patient care is clustered together according to clinicians and hospitals where they receive treatment. Therefore, multi-level regression models are needed to validly estimate the influence of each factor at each level. In addition, we will explore how to estimate the influence that variability-for example, one anesthesiologist deciding to do one thing, while another takes a different approach-has on outcomes for patients, using the intra-class correlation coefficient for continuous outcomes and the median odds ratio for binary outcomes. From this tutorial, you should acquire a clearer understanding of how to perform and interpret multi-level regression modeling and estimate the influence of variable clinical practices on patient outcomes in order to answer common but complex clinical questions. Fig. 1 Infographics.
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 | 0.015 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".