Development and validation of claims-based algorithms for estimating gestational age of spontaneous abortion and termination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study the risk of spontaneous abortion (SAB) or termination using healthcare utilization databases, algorithms to estimate the gestational age (GA) are needed. Using Medicaid data, we developed a hierarchical algorithm to classify pregnancy outcomes. We identified the subset of potential SAB and termination cases, and abstracted the GA from linked electronic medical records (gold standard). We developed three approaches: (1) assign median GA for SAB and termination cases in the US; (2) draw a random GA from the population distributions; (3) estimate GA based on regression models. Algorithm performance was assessed based on the proportion of pregnancies with estimated GA within 1-4 weeks of the gold standard, the mean squared error (MSE) and the R-squared. Approach 1 and Approach 3 had similar performance, though approach 3 using random forest models with variables selected via the Boruta algorithm had better MSE and R-squared. For SAB, 58.0% of pregnancies were correctly classified within 2 weeks of the gold standard (MSE: 8.7, R-squared: 0.09). For termination, the proportions were 66.3% (MSE: 11.7; R-squared: 0.35). SABs and terminations can be studied in healthcare utilization data with careful implementation of validated algorithms though higher level of GA misclassification is expected compared to live births.
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 | 0.037 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".