Addressing Information Biases Within Electronic Health Record Data to Improve the Examination of Epidemiologic Associations With Diabetes Prevalence Among Young Adults: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly used for epidemiologic research to advance public health practice. However, key variables are susceptible to missing data or misclassification within EHRs, including demographic information or disease status, which could affect the estimation of disease prevalence or risk factor associations. Objective: In this paper, we applied methods from the literature on missing data and causal inference to assess whether we could mitigate information biases when estimating measures of association between potential risk factors and diabetes among a patient population of New York City young adults. Methods: We estimated the odds ratio (OR) for diabetes by race or ethnicity and asthma status using EHR data from NYU Langone Health. Methods from the missing data and causal inference literature were then applied to assess the ability to control for misclassification of health outcomes in the EHR data. We compared EHR-based associations with associations observed from 2 national health surveys, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, representing traditional public health surveillance systems. Results: Observed EHR-based associations between race or ethnicity and diabetes were comparable to health survey-based estimates, but the association between asthma and diabetes was significantly overestimated (OREHR 3.01, 95% CI 2.86-3.18 vs ORBRFSS 1.23, 95% CI 1.09-1.40). Missing data and causal inference methods reduced information biases in these estimates, yielding relative differences from traditional estimates below 50% (ORMissingData 1.79, 95% CI 1.67-1.92 and ORCausal 1.42, 95% CI 1.34-1.51). Conclusions: Findings suggest that without bias adjustment, EHR analyses may yield biased measures of association, driven in part by subgroup differences in health care use. However, applying missing data or causal inference frameworks can help control for and, importantly, characterize residual information biases in these estimates.
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 | 0.110 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".