Development and Validation of a Predictive Algorithm to Identify Adult Asthmatics from Medical Services and Pharmacy Claims Databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate the accuracy of a predictive model to identify adult asthmatics from administrative health care databases. STUDY SETTING: An existing electronic medical record project in Montreal, Quebec. STUDY DESIGN: One thousand four hundred and thirty-one patients with confirmed asthma status were identified from primary care physician's electronic medical record. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Therapeutic indication of asthma in an electronic prescription and/or confirmed asthma from an automated problem list were used as the gold standard. Five groups of asthma-specific markers were identified from administrative health care databases to estimate the probability of the presence of asthma. Cross-validation evaluated the diagnostic ability of each predictive model using 50 percent of sample. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The best performance in discriminating between the patients with asthma and those without it included indicators from medical service and prescription claims databases. The best-fitting algorithm had a sensitivity of 70 percent, a specificity of 94 percent, and positive predictive value of 65 percent. The prescriptions claims-specific algorithm demonstrated a nearly equal performance to the model with medical services and prescription claims combined. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithm using asthma-specific markers from administrative claims databases provided moderate sensitivity and high specificity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".