MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7017826094

Completeness of rheumatoid arthritis prevalence estimates from administrative health data: comparison of capture-recapture models

2014· dissertation· en· W7017826094 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationEstimationEstimatorBayesian probabilityConfidence interval
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease characterized by an overactive immune system and joint inflammation. Population-based administrative health data (AHD) are widely used for RA outcomes research and surveillance. However, AHD may not completely capture all cases of RA in the population. Capture-recapture (CR) methods have been proposed to describe the completeness of AHD for estimating disease population size, but AHD may not conform to the assumptions that underlie CR models. A Monte Carlo simulation study was used to investigate the effects of violations of the assumptions for two-source CR methods: dependence between data sources and heterogeneity of capture probabilities. We compared the Chapman estimator and an estimator based on the multinomial logistic regression model (MLRM) to study relative bias (RB), coverage probability (CP) of 95% confidence intervals, width of 95% confidence intervals (WCI), and root-mean-square-error (RMSE) in prevalence estimates. The effects of misspecification of the MLRM were also investigated. In addition, the Chapman and MLRM estimators were used to estimate RA prevalence using AHD data from Saskatchewan, Canada. Population sizes were consistently underestimated for CR methods when the assumptions were violated. The estimated population size for both of the estimators did not differ substantially except for the RMSE values. Parameter estimates became biased when the MLRM model was misspecified, but there was little impact on population size estimates. In conclusion, CR methods are recommended to reduce bias in prevalence estimates based on AHDS. Because these methods may be sensitive to assumption violations, researchers should consider potential dependence between data sources. As well, sufficient overlap in the cases captured by each data source (e.g., 50% of the cases are captured by both data sources) or balanced capture probability in each data source is needed to effectively implement these methods. Researchers who estimate population size using CR methods in AHDs should favour the MLRM estimator over the Chapman estimator.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicCensus and Population EstimationFrench-language works237,207