Development of the multivariate administrative data cystectomy model and its impact on misclassification bias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Misclassification bias (MB) is the deviation of measured from true values due to incorrect case assignment. This study compared MB when cystectomy status was determined using administrative database codes vs. predicted cystectomy probability. Methods We identified every primary cystectomy-diversion type at a single hospital 2009–2019. We linked to claims data to measure true association of cystectomy with 30 patient and hospitalization factors. Associations were also measured when cystectomy status was assigned using billing codes and by cystectomy probability from multivariate logistic regression model with covariates from administrative data. MB was the difference between measured and true associations. Results 500 people underwent cystectomy (0.12% of 428 677 hospitalizations). Sensitivity and positive predictive values for cystectomy codes were 97.1% and 58.6% for incontinent diversions and 100.0% and 48.4% for continent diversions, respectively. The model accurately predicted cystectomy-incontinent diversion (c-statistic [C] 0.999, Integrated Calibration Index [ICI] 0.000) and cystectomy-continent diversion (C:1.000, ICI 0.000) probabilities. MB was significantly lower when model-based predictions was used to impute cystectomy-diversion type status using for both incontinent cystectomy (F = 12.75; p < .0001) and continent cystectomy (F = 11.25; p < .0001). Conclusions A model using administrative data accurately returned the probability that cystectomy by diversion type occurred during a hospitalization. Using this model to impute cystectomy status minimized MB. Accuracy of administrative database research can be increased by using probabilistic imputation to determine case status instead of individual codes.
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 | 0.065 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".