Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 551

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Chronic Disease Score with Empirically Derived Weights

Clark, Daniel O., Korff, Michael Von, Saunders, Kathleen, Balugh, William M., Simon, Gregory E.·1995·Medical Care
DOI 10.1097/00005650-199508000-00004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Different types of medication prescribed during a 6-month period for the treatment and management of chronic conditions were utilized in the refinement and validation of a chronic disease score. Prescription data, in addition to age and sex, were utilized to develop a chronic disease score based on empirically derived weights for each of three outcomes: total cost, outpatient cost, and primary care visits. The ability of the revised chronic disease score to predict health care utilization, costs, hospitalization, and mortality was compared to an earlier version of the chronic disease score (original) that was derived through clinical judgments of disease severity. The predictive validity of the chronic disease score is also compared to ambulatory care groups, which utilize outpatient diagnoses to form mutually exclusive diagnostic categories. Models based on a concurrent 6-month period and a 6-month prospective period (ie, the 6-month period after the chronic disease score or ambulatory care group derivation period) were estimated using a random one half sample of 250,000 managed-care enrollees aged 18 and older. The remaining one half of the enrollee population was used as a validation sample. The revised chronic disease score showed improved estimation and prediction over the original chronic disease score. The difference in variance explained prospectively by the revised chronic disease score versus the ambulatory care groups, conversely, was small. The revised chronic disease score was a better predictor of mortality than the ambulatory care groups. The combination of revised chronic disease score and ambulatory care groups showed only marginally greater predictive power than either one alone. These results suggest that the revised chronic disease score and ambulatory care groups with empirically derived weights provide improved prediction of health care utilization and costs, as well as hospitalization and mortality, over age and sex alone. We recommend the revised chronic disease score with total cost weights for general use as a severity measure because of its relative advantage in predicting mortality compared to the outpatient cost and primary care visit weights.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00005650-199508000-00004

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Clark, D. O., Korff, M. V., Saunders, K., Balugh, W. M., & Simon, G. E.
Venue
Medical Care
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1995-08
Volume
33
Issue
8
Pages
783-795
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00005650-199508000-00004
OpenAlex
W1966408965
Cited by
551
References
0
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.