arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2202.13150

Importance of diagnostic accuracy in big data: False-positive diagnoses of type 2 diabetes in health insurance claims data of 70 million Germans

Ralph Brinks·Thaddaeus Toennies·Annika Hoyer
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Large data sets comprising diagnoses about chronic conditions are becoming increasingly available for research purposes. In Germany, it is planned that aggregated claims data including medical diagnoses from the statutory health insurance with roughly 70 million insurants will be published on a regular basis. Validity of the diagnoses in such big data sets can hardly be assessed. In case the data set comprises prevalence, incidence and mortality, it is possible to estimate the proportion of false positive diagnoses using mathematical relations from the illness-death model. We apply the method to age-specific aggregated claims data from 70 million Germans about type 2 diabetes in Germany stratified by sex and report the findings in terms of the ratio of false positive diagnoses of type 2 diabetes (FPR) in the data set. The age-specific FPR for men and women changes with age. In men, the FPR increases linearly from 1 to 3 per mil in the age 30 to 50. For ages between 50 to 80 years, FPR remains below 4 per mil. After 80 years of age, we have an increase to about 5 per mil. In women, we find a steep increase from age 30 to 60, the peak FPR is reached at about 12 per mil between 60 and 70 years of age. After age 70, the FPR of women drops tremendously. In all age-groups, the FPR is higher in women than in men. In terms of absolute numbers, we find that there are 217 thousand people with a false-positive diagnosis in the data set (95% confidence interval, CI: 204 to 229), the vast majority women (172 thousand, 95% CI: 162 to 180). Our work indicates that possible false positive (and negative) diagnoses should appropriately be dealt with in claims data, e.g., by inclusion of age- and sex-specific error terms in statistical models, to avoid potentially biased or wrong conclusions.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ralph Brinks, Thaddaeus Toennies, Annika Hoyer. 2022-02-26. Importance of diagnostic accuracy in big data: False-positive diagnoses of type 2 diabetes in health insurance claims data of 70 million Germans. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.13150

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗