Assessing the validity of post-discharge readmission and mortality as a composite outcome among newborns in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Composite outcomes, which include mortality and readmission rates, are often used in risk prediction models following hospital discharge when event rates for the primary outcome of interest, mortality, are low. However, increased readmission rates may result in decreased mortality making interpretation of the composite outcome difficult. We assess the usefulness of a composite outcome of post-discharge readmission and mortality as a target outcome in this context. Methods This was a secondary analysis of data collected among mothers and their newborn(s) admitted for delivery at two regional referral hospitals in Uganda. Six-week post-discharge mortality (all-cause) and readmission in newborn infants were analyzed using a competing risk framework. The Sub distribution Hazard Ratios (SHRs) were compared across predictor variables to examine the relationship between the two outcomes. Results Of the 206 predictors, 81 had a consistent association with both outcomes. These include a higher weight (Mortality SHR: 0.14, Readmission SHR: 0.68) and length of the baby (Mortality SHR: 0.85, Readmission SHR: 0.91). However, 125 variables depicted an association in opposing directions for both outcomes which may be linked to social and financial barriers to care-seeking. These include a travel time to the hospital of greater than 1 hour (Mortality SHR: 1.4, Readmission SHR: 0.28). Conclusion While mortality is unequivocally a negative outcome, readmission may be a positive outcome, reflecting health seeking, or a negative outcome, reflecting recurrent illness. This directional dichotomy is reflected to varying degrees within different variables. When using a composite outcome for a prediction model, caution should be exercised to ensure that the model identifies individuals at risk of the intended outcomes of interest, rather than merely the proxies used to represent those outcomes. Identifying predictors with a consistent relationship for both outcomes may yield a more optimized and less biased prediction model for use in clinical care.
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 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".