Cargando…

Modelling hospital outcome: problems with endogeneity

BACKGROUND: Mortality modelling in the critical care paradigm traditionally uses logistic regression, despite the availability of estimators commonly used in alternate disciplines. Little attention has been paid to covariate endogeneity and the status of non-randomized treatment assignment. Using a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moran, John L., Santamaria, John D., Duke, Graeme J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8215743/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34154530
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01251-8
_version_ 1783710298721484800
author Moran, John L.
Santamaria, John D.
Duke, Graeme J.
author_facet Moran, John L.
Santamaria, John D.
Duke, Graeme J.
author_sort Moran, John L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Mortality modelling in the critical care paradigm traditionally uses logistic regression, despite the availability of estimators commonly used in alternate disciplines. Little attention has been paid to covariate endogeneity and the status of non-randomized treatment assignment. Using a large registry database, various binary outcome modelling strategies and methods to account for covariate endogeneity were explored. METHODS: Patient mortality data was sourced from the Australian & New Zealand Intensive Society Adult Patient Database for 2016. Hospital mortality was modelled using logistic, probit and linear probability (LPM) models with intensive care (ICU) providers as fixed (FE) and random (RE) effects. Model comparison entailed indices of discrimination and calibration, information criteria (AIC and BIC) and binned residual analysis. Suspect covariate and ventilation treatment assignment endogeneity was identified by correlation between predictor variable and hospital mortality error terms, using the Stata™ “eprobit” estimator. Marginal effects were used to demonstrate effect estimate differences between probit and “eprobit” models. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 92,693 patients from 124 intensive care units (ICU) in calendar year 2016. Patients mean age was 61.8 (SD 17.5) years, 41.6% were female and APACHE III severity of illness score 54.5(25.6); 43.7% were ventilated. Of the models considered in predicting hospital mortality, logistic regression (with or without ICU FE) and RE logistic regression dominated, more so the latter using information criteria indices. The LPM suffered from many predictions outside the unit [0,1] interval and both poor discrimination and calibration. Error terms of hospital length of stay, an independent risk of death score and ventilation status were correlated with the mortality error term. Marked differences in the ventilation mortality marginal effect was demonstrated between the probit and the "eprobit" models which were scenario dependent. Endogeneity was not demonstrated for the APACHE III score. CONCLUSIONS: Logistic regression accounting for provider effects was the preferred estimator for hospital mortality modelling. Endogeneity of covariates and treatment variables may be identified using appropriate modelling, but failure to do so yields problematic effect estimates. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01251-8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8215743
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82157432021-06-23 Modelling hospital outcome: problems with endogeneity Moran, John L. Santamaria, John D. Duke, Graeme J. BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Mortality modelling in the critical care paradigm traditionally uses logistic regression, despite the availability of estimators commonly used in alternate disciplines. Little attention has been paid to covariate endogeneity and the status of non-randomized treatment assignment. Using a large registry database, various binary outcome modelling strategies and methods to account for covariate endogeneity were explored. METHODS: Patient mortality data was sourced from the Australian & New Zealand Intensive Society Adult Patient Database for 2016. Hospital mortality was modelled using logistic, probit and linear probability (LPM) models with intensive care (ICU) providers as fixed (FE) and random (RE) effects. Model comparison entailed indices of discrimination and calibration, information criteria (AIC and BIC) and binned residual analysis. Suspect covariate and ventilation treatment assignment endogeneity was identified by correlation between predictor variable and hospital mortality error terms, using the Stata™ “eprobit” estimator. Marginal effects were used to demonstrate effect estimate differences between probit and “eprobit” models. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 92,693 patients from 124 intensive care units (ICU) in calendar year 2016. Patients mean age was 61.8 (SD 17.5) years, 41.6% were female and APACHE III severity of illness score 54.5(25.6); 43.7% were ventilated. Of the models considered in predicting hospital mortality, logistic regression (with or without ICU FE) and RE logistic regression dominated, more so the latter using information criteria indices. The LPM suffered from many predictions outside the unit [0,1] interval and both poor discrimination and calibration. Error terms of hospital length of stay, an independent risk of death score and ventilation status were correlated with the mortality error term. Marked differences in the ventilation mortality marginal effect was demonstrated between the probit and the "eprobit" models which were scenario dependent. Endogeneity was not demonstrated for the APACHE III score. CONCLUSIONS: Logistic regression accounting for provider effects was the preferred estimator for hospital mortality modelling. Endogeneity of covariates and treatment variables may be identified using appropriate modelling, but failure to do so yields problematic effect estimates. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01251-8. BioMed Central 2021-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC8215743/ /pubmed/34154530 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01251-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Moran, John L.
Santamaria, John D.
Duke, Graeme J.
Modelling hospital outcome: problems with endogeneity
title Modelling hospital outcome: problems with endogeneity
title_full Modelling hospital outcome: problems with endogeneity
title_fullStr Modelling hospital outcome: problems with endogeneity
title_full_unstemmed Modelling hospital outcome: problems with endogeneity
title_short Modelling hospital outcome: problems with endogeneity
title_sort modelling hospital outcome: problems with endogeneity
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8215743/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34154530
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01251-8
work_keys_str_mv AT moranjohnl modellinghospitaloutcomeproblemswithendogeneity
AT santamariajohnd modellinghospitaloutcomeproblemswithendogeneity
AT dukegraemej modellinghospitaloutcomeproblemswithendogeneity
AT modellinghospitaloutcomeproblemswithendogeneity