Derivation and validation of an algorithm to predict transitions from community to residential long-term care among persons with dementia—A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a model to predict time-to-LTC admissions among individuals with dementia. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort study using health administrative data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older adults (65+) in Ontario living with dementia and assessed with the Resident Assessment Instrument for Home Care (RAI-HC) between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2017. METHODS: Individuals in the derivation cohort (n = 95,813; assessed before March 31, 2015) were followed for up to 360 days after the index RAI-HC assessment for admission into LTC. We used a multivariable Fine Gray sub-distribution hazard model to predict the cumulative incidence of LTC entry while accounting for all-cause mortality as a competing risk. The model was validated in 34,038 older adults with dementia with an index RAI-HC assessment between April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2017. RESULTS: Within one year of a RAI-HC assessment, 35,513 (37.1%) individuals in the derivation cohort and 10,735 (31.5%) in the validation cohort entered LTC. Our algorithm was well-calibrated (Emax = 0.119, ICIavg = 0.057) and achieved a c-statistic of 0.707 (95% confidence interval: 0.703-0.712) in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: We developed an algorithm to predict time to LTC entry among individuals living with dementia. This tool can inform care planning for individuals with dementia and their family caregivers.
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 | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".