MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405568089 · doi:10.3138/jammi-2024-0011

Misattribution bias of COVID-19 hospitalizations in Alberta using an admission algorithm

2024· article· en· W4405568089 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tri Dinh, Jordan Ross, Samantha James, Kristin Klein, A. Uma Chandran, Oscar Larios, David R. Strong, John Conly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsAdjudicationMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Public healthConcordanceAlgorithmAttributionEmergency medicineInternal medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)PsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: With initial waves of COVID-19, many public health systems assumed each COVID-19 positive hospitalization was a direct cause from COVID-19 infection. Since January 2022, Alberta Health Services Communicable Disease Control Hospitalization Team (CDC-HT) implemented an admission criteria algorithm to adjudicate COVID-19 as a direct, contributing, or unrelated cause for all COVID-19 admissions in Alberta. Methods: This quality improvement initiative sought to improve the admission algorithm's precision in reporting COVID-19 admissions. Patient hospitalization records from January-February 2022 with a positive COVID-19 test in the last 30 days were proportionally sampled in a geographically stratified manner across Alberta health zones. 261 patient records were sampled and determination of COVID-19 attribution by CDC-HT algorithm was compared to adjudication by a panel of infectious diseases physicians with extensive COVID-19 clinical experience. Results: Of 261 sampled COVID-19 admissions, blinded physician adjudication determined 39.9% were direct-cause, 17.2% contributing-cause, and 37.6% unrelated-cause. Within the same cohort the CDC-HT admission algorithm adjudicated 42.9% direct-cause, 24.5% contributing-cause, and 30.3% unrelated-cause. Cohen's kappa was 0.475, providing only moderate agreement. The majority of discrepancy was from over-attribution of unrelated hospitalizations as contributing cause. Implementation of this algorithm in Alberta throughout 2022 showed a fluctuating proportion of direct plus contributing COVID-19 hospitalizations as low as 40%. Conclusion: There was misattribution bias in COVID-19 hospitalization determination using the admission algorithm. The findings from this analysis led to improvements in the algorithm to improve precision. Public health jurisdictions should review their COVID-19 hospitalization reporting approaches to ensure validity and consideration of incidental cases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.198
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.198
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease CanadaSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207