Validation of Coding Algorithms for the Identification of Patients with Primary Biliary Cirrhosis Using Administrative Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Large-scale epidemiological studies of primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) have been hindered by difficulties in case ascertainment. OBJECTIVE: To develop coding algorithms for identifying PBC patients using administrative data--a widely available data source. METHODS: Population-based administrative databases were used to identify patients with a diagnosis code for PBC from 1994 to 2002. Coding algorithms for confirmed PBC (two or more of antimitochondrial antibody positivity, cholestatic liver biochemistry and/or compatible liver histology) were derived using chart abstraction data as the reference. Patients with a recorded PBC diagnosis but insufficient confirmatory data were classified as 'suspected PBC'. RESULTS: Of 189 potential PBC cases, 119 (60%) had confirmed PBC and 28 (14%) had suspected PBC. The optimal algorithm including two or more uses of a PBC code had a sensitivity of 94% (95% CI 71% to 100%) and positive predictive values of 73% (95% CI 61% to 75%) for confirmed PBC, and 89% (95% CI 82% to 94%) for confirmed or suspected PBC. Sensitivity analyses revealed greater accuracy among women, and with the use of multiple data sources and one or more years of data. Inclusion of diagnosis codes for conditions frequently misclassified as PBC did not improve algorithm performance. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative databases can reliably identify patients with PBC and may facilitate epidemiological investigations of this condition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".