Dataset Information

Validation of a neighborhood sentiment and safety index derived from existing data repositories.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The communities we live in are central to our health. Neighborhood disadvantage is associated with worse physical and mental health and even early mortality, while resident sense of safety and positive neighborhood sentiment has been repeatedly linked to better physical and mental health outcomes. Therefore, understanding where negative neighborhood sentiment and safety are salient concerns can help inform public health interventions and as a result, improve health outcomes. To date, fear of crime and neighborhood sentiment data or indices have largely been based on the administration of time consuming and costly standardized surveys.

Objective

The current study aims to develop a Neighborhood Sentiment and Safety Index (NSSI) at the census tract level, building on publicly available data repositories, including the US Census and ACS surveys, Data Axle, and ESRI repositories.

Methods

The NSSI was created using Principal Component Analysis. Mineigen and minimum loading values were 1 and 0.3, respectively. Throughout the step-wise PCA process, variables were excluded if their loading value was below 0.3 or if variables loaded into multiple components.

Results

The novel index was validated against standardized survey items from a longitudinal cohort study in the Northeastern United States characterizing experiences of (1) Neighborhood Characteristics with a Pearson correlation of -0.34 (p < 0.001) and, (2) Neighborhood Behavior Impact with a Pearson correlation of -0.33 (p < 0.001). It also accurately predicted the Share Care Community Well Being Index (Spearman correlation = 0.46) and the neighborhood deprivation index (NDI) (Spearman correlation = -0.75).

Significance

Our NSSI can serve as a predictor of neighborhood experience where data is either unavailable or too resource consuming to practically implement in planned studies.

Impact statement

To date, fear of crime and neighborhood sentiment data or indices have largely been based on the administration of time consuming and costly standardized surveys. The current study aims to develop a Neighborhood Sentiment and Safety Index (NSSI) at the census tract level, building on publicly available data repositories, including the US Census and ACS surveys, Data Axle, and ESRI repositories. The NSSI was validated against four separate measures and can serve as a predictor of neighborhood experience where data is either unavailable or too resource consuming to practically implement in planned studies.

SUBMITTER: Geron M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10010937 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validation of a neighborhood sentiment and safety index derived from existing data repositories.

Geron Mariel M Factor Roni R Cowell Whitney W Lane Kevin K Kloog Itai I Wright Robert O RO Wright Rosalind J RJ

Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology 20221019 2

<h4>Background</h4>The communities we live in are central to our health. Neighborhood disadvantage is associated with worse physical and mental health and even early mortality, while resident sense of safety and positive neighborhood sentiment has been repeatedly linked to better physical and mental health outcomes. Therefore, understanding where negative neighborhood sentiment and safety are salient concerns can help inform public health interventions and as a result, improve health outcomes. T ...[more]

PMID: 36261571

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOver the past decade, the emergence of several large federated clinical data networks has enabled researchers to access data on millions of patients at dozens of health care organizations. Typically, queries are broadcast to each of the sites in the network, which then return aggregate counts of the number of matching patients. However, because patients can receive care from multiple sites in the network, simply adding the numbers frequently double counts patients. Various methods such as the use of trusted third parties or secure multiparty computation have been proposed to link patient records across sites. However, they either have large trade-offs in accuracy and privacy or are not scalable to large networks.ObjectiveThis study aims to enable accurate estimates of the number of patients matching a federated query while providing strong guarantees on the amount of protected medical information revealed.MethodsWe introduce a novel probabilistic approach to running federated network queries. It combines an algorithm called HyperLogLog with obfuscation in the form of hashing, masking, and homomorphic encryption. It is tunable, in that it allows networks to balance accuracy versus privacy, and it is computationally efficient even for large networks. We built a user-friendly free open-source benchmarking platform to simulate federated queries in large hospital networks. Using this platform, we compare the accuracy, k-anonymity privacy risk (with k=10), and computational runtime of our algorithm with several existing techniques.ResultsIn simulated queries matching 1 to 100 million patients in a 100-hospital network, our method was significantly more accurate than adding aggregate counts while maintaining k-anonymity. On average, it required a total of 12 kilobytes of data to be sent to the network hub and added only 5 milliseconds to the overall federated query runtime. This was orders of magnitude better than other approaches, which guaranteed the exact answer.ConclusionsUsing our method, it is possible to run highly accurate federated queries of clinical data repositories that both protect patient privacy and scale to large networks.

Project description:BackgroundMany dementia prediction models have been developed, but only few have been externally validated, which hinders clinical uptake and may pose a risk if models are applied to actual patients regardless. Externally validating an existing prediction model is a difficult task, where we mostly rely on the completeness of model reporting in a published article. In this study, we aim to externally validate existing dementia prediction models. To that end, we define model reporting criteria, review published studies, and externally validate three well reported models using routinely collected health data from administrative claims and electronic health records.MethodsWe identified dementia prediction models that were developed between 2011 and 2020 and assessed if they could be externally validated given a set of model criteria. In addition, we externally validated three of these models (Walters' Dementia Risk Score, Mehta's RxDx-Dementia Risk Index, and Nori's ADRD dementia prediction model) on a network of six observational health databases from the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands, including the original development databases of the models.ResultsWe reviewed 59 dementia prediction models. All models reported the prediction method, development database, and target and outcome definitions. Less frequently reported by these 59 prediction models were predictor definitions (52 models) including the time window in which a predictor is assessed (21 models), predictor coefficients (20 models), and the time-at-risk (42 models). The validation of the model by Walters (development c-statistic: 0.84) showed moderate transportability (0.67-0.76 c-statistic). The Mehta model (development c-statistic: 0.81) transported well to some of the external databases (0.69-0.79 c-statistic). The Nori model (development AUROC: 0.69) transported well (0.62-0.68 AUROC) but performed modestly overall. Recalibration showed improvements for the Walters and Nori models, while recalibration could not be assessed for the Mehta model due to unreported baseline hazard.ConclusionWe observed that reporting is mostly insufficient to fully externally validate published dementia prediction models, and therefore, it is uncertain how well these models would work in other clinical settings. We emphasize the importance of following established guidelines for reporting clinical prediction models. We recommend that reporting should be more explicit and have external validation in mind if the model is meant to be applied in different settings.

Project description:BackgroundAvailable COVID-19 mortality indices are limited to acute inpatient data. Using nationwide medical administrative data available prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection from the US Veterans Health Administration (VA), we developed the VA COVID-19 (VACO) 30-day mortality index and validated the index in two independent, prospective samples.Methods and findingsWe reviewed SARS-CoV-2 testing results within the VA between February 8 and August 18, 2020. The sample was split into a development cohort (test positive between March 2 and April 15, 2020), an early validation cohort (test positive between April 16 and May 18, 2020), and a late validation cohort (test positive between May 19 and July 19, 2020). Our logistic regression model in the development cohort considered demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity), and pre-existing medical conditions and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) derived from ICD-10 diagnosis codes. Weights were fixed to create the VACO Index that was then validated by comparing area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) in the early and late validation cohorts and among important validation cohort subgroups defined by sex, race/ethnicity, and geographic region. We also evaluated calibration curves and the range of predictions generated within age categories. 13,323 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (median age: 63 years; 91% male; 42% non-Hispanic Black). We observed 480/3,681 (13%) deaths in development, 253/2,151 (12%) deaths in the early validation cohort, and 403/7,491 (5%) deaths in the late validation cohort. Age, multimorbidity described with CCI, and a history of myocardial infarction or peripheral vascular disease were independently associated with mortality-no other individual comorbid diagnosis provided additional information. The VACO Index discriminated mortality in development (AUC = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.77-0.81), and in early (AUC = 0.81 95% CI: 0.78-0.83) and late (AUC = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.78-0.86) validation. The VACO Index allows personalized estimates of 30-day mortality after COVID-19 infection. For example, among those aged 60-64 years, overall mortality was estimated at 9% (95% CI: 6-11%). The Index further discriminated risk in this age stratum from 4% (95% CI: 3-7%) to 21% (95% CI: 12-31%), depending on sex and comorbid disease.ConclusionPrior to infection, demographics and comorbid conditions can discriminate COVID-19 mortality risk overall and within age strata. The VACO Index reproducibly identified individuals at substantial risk of COVID-19 mortality who might consider continuing social distancing, despite relaxed state and local guidelines.

Dataset Information

Validation of a neighborhood sentiment and safety index derived from existing data repositories.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Significance

Impact statement

Publications

Validation of a neighborhood sentiment and safety index derived from existing data repositories.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets