Chronic Disease Case Definitions for Electronic Medical Records: A Canadian Validation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACTObjectivesCanadians are investing heavily in electronic medical records (EMRs) to inform primary care practice improvements. The Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) is a national practice-based network that has enrolled more than one million patients to date. Accurate CPCSSN EMR data are essential for unbiased research about chronic disease prevention and management. The study purpose was to test the accuracy of chronic disease case definitions in EMR data from one CPCSSN site. ApproachThis study linked CPCSSN EMR data, hospital records, physician billing claims, prescription drug records, and population registration files for the province of Manitoba. Individuals who had at least one encounter with a CPCSSN practice between 1998 and 2012, were at least 18 years of age, and had a minimum of two years of healthcare coverage before and after the study index date were included. Separate cohorts were defined for the following chronic diseases: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), depression, diabetes, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. Validated case definitions based on diagnoses in physician and hospital records and prescription drug data were used estimate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and kappa of each EMR chronic disease case definition. ResultsMore than 74,000 individuals were included in each cohort, except for COPD which had 51,000. Approximately half of each cohort was comprised of urban residents. The average age ranged from 45.9 years for individuals with depression to 65.3 years for individuals with COPD. Hypertension had the highest prevalence (22.0%) in EMR data followed by depression (14.6%). Estimates of agreement (i.e., kappa) for EMR and administrative data ranged from 0.47 for COPD to 0.58 for diabetes. Sensitivity of the EMR data was lowest for COPD (37.4%; 95% CI 36.0-38.8) and highest for diabetes (57.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 56.6-58.6). PPV estimates were lowest for osteoarthritis (66.9%; 95% CI 66.0-67.8) and highest for hypertension (78.3%; 95% CI 77.7-78.9). Specificity estimates were consistently above 90% and NPV estimates were always greater than 80%. Validity estimates for the EMR case definitions were associated with demographic and comorbidity characteristics of the study cohorts. ConclusionsValidity of EMR data, when compared to administrative health data, for ascertaining five different chronic diseases was fair to good; it varied with the disease under investigation. Further research is needed to identify methods for improving the accuracy of chronic disease case definitions in EMR data.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,025 | 0,059 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».