Risk factors and predictive performance for first healthcare encounter indicating homelessness using administrative data among Calgary residents diagnosed with addiction or mental health conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals diagnosed with addiction or mental health (AMH) conditions are more likely to experience potentially adverse outcomes of homelessness. Despite their link to later outcomes, research on initial episodes of AMH outcomes is limited. This study aims to use administrative data to identify the factors associated with the first healthcare encounters with indicators of homelessness (FHE-H) for individuals diagnosed with AMH. We assessed logistic regression and compared its performance with machine learning models, including random forests and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). We conducted a retrospective cohort study linking several administrative datasets for 232,253 individuals with Alberta health insurance in Calgary, Canada, who were aged between 18 and 65 and diagnosed with AMH between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2018. We assessed outcomes in two years following cohort entry. Individuals with episodes of FHE-H (2,606 individuals) before the index date were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with outcomes by estimating adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals. Among 229,647 individuals diagnosed with AMH, 1,886 (0.82%) experienced FHE-H during the follow-up period. Mental health emergency visits (AORs=5.28 [95% CI: 4.41, 6.33]), substance misuse (AORs=3.87 [95% CI: 3.28, 4.56], substance use disorders (AORs=2.03 [95% CI: 1.64, 2.50]), and male sex (AORs=1.28 [95% CI: 1.14, 1.44]) were associated with FHE-H. XGBoost performance improved over logistic regression, with increases in area under the curve (AUC) by 1% and precision by 2%. Overall, several AMH features were associated with FHE-H, and machine learning models outperformed logistic regression, although to a small degree.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".