MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimal Strategies for Determining the Duration of Washout Period in the Context of Identifying Chronic Disease Onset Cases Based on Administrative Data: a Systematic Review

2024· article· en· W6922331194 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuration (music)Context (archaeology)Chronic diseaseSystematic reviewDiseaseChronic conditionIncidence (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background When using administrative data, the establishment of clear and appropriate duration of chronic disease washout period is the basis for correctly identifying the point of onset of chronic disease in patients with recurrent visits and identifying new cases. Objective To review the methods for determining the duration of washout period by a systematic review of literature, in order to provide ideas for Chinese researchers to confirm the duration of washout period and correctly identify new cases with subsequent use of administrative data to identify new cases of chronic diseases. Methods In October 2021, PubMed, Web of Science, EmBase, CNKI, CQVIP and Wanfang Knowledge Service Platform were systematically searched for literature on the use of administrative data to explore the incidence and prevalence of chronic diseases from inception to 2022-10-01. Two researchers independently screened literatures and extracted relevant information, evaluated the quality of literature by using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) scale, and summarized the determination method of the duration of washout period. Results A total of 26 papers were included, and the SRQR scores of the included literature were all≥15, indicating good methodological quality. The data used in the literature were mainly from Canada, the United States, Australia and other countries (regions) with complete and abundant administrative data, and focused on a variety of chronic diseases, including diabetes, tumor, schizophrenia and other chronic diseases. The study pointed out that setting an appropriate washout period duration is the basis for accurate identification of onset cases. The methods used to determine the duration of washout period in literature were mainly divided into three major categories, including direct restriction method, consistency test method and retrograde survival function method. Among them, the most commonly used method was direct restriction method, while the retrograde survival function method had a relatively low usage rate. Conclusion Direct restriction method, consistency test method and retrograde survival function method all have corresponding advantages and limitations. The selection, judgment criteria and stability of the method need to be further explored.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0070.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.422
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.149 · 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