Validation of infant immunization billing codes in administrative data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontario has a single payer provincial health insurance program. Administrative data may provide a potentially robust source of information for post-marketing vaccine studies. Vaccine-specific immunization billing codes were introduced in 2011. Our objective was to validate Ontario's universal health care administrative datasets to assess infant immunization status. Electronic medical record data from the Electronic Medical Record Administrative data Linked Database (EMRALD) was used as the reference standard to calculate performance characteristics of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) database vaccine-specific and general immunization codes for 4 primary infant immunizations: diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, inactivated polio, Haemophilus influenzae type B (DTaP-IPV-Hib) combination vaccine, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine, and meningococcal conjugate serogroup C vaccine. OHIP billing claims had specificity ranging from 81% to 92%, sensitivity 70% to 83%, positive predictive value (PPV) 97% to 99%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 13% to 46% for identifying the various specific vaccines in administrative data. For cohorts vaccinated in the new code introduction phase, using both the vaccine-specific and general codes had higher sensitivity than the vaccine-specific codes alone. In conclusion, immunization billing claims from administrative data in Ontario had high specificity and PPV, moderate sensitivity, and low NPV. This study identifies some of the applications of utilizing administrative data for post-marketing vaccine studies. However, limitations of these data decrease their utility for measuring vaccine coverage and effectiveness. Therefore, the establishment of a comprehensive and linkable immunization registry should be a provincial priority.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".