A systematic review of validated methods for identifying seizures, convulsions, or epilepsy using administrative and claims data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically review algorithms to identify seizure, convulsion, or epilepsy cases in administrative and claims data, with a focus on studies that have examined the validity of the algorithms. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using PubMed and the Iowa Drug Information Service database. Reviews were conducted by two investigators to identify studies using data sources from the USA or Canada because these data sources were most likely to reflect the coding practices of Mini-Sentinel data partners. RESULTS: Eleven studies that validated seizure, convulsion, or epilepsy cases were identified. All algorithms included International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 345.X (epilepsy) and either code 780.3 (convulsions) or code 780.39 (other convulsions). Six studies included 333.2 (myoclonus). In populations that included children, 779.0 (convulsions in newborn) was also fairly common. Positive predictive values (PPVs) ranged from 21% to 98%. Studies that used nonspecific indicators such as presence of an electroencephalogram or anti-epileptic drug (AED) level monitoring had lower PPVs. In studies focusing exclusively on epilepsy as opposed to isolated seizure events, sensitivity ranged from 70% to 99%. CONCLUSIONS: Algorithm performance was highly variable, so it is difficult to draw any strong conclusions. However, the PPVs were generally best in studies where epilepsy diagnoses were required. Using procedure codes for electroencephalograms or prescription claims for drugs possibly used for epilepsy or convulsions in the absence of a diagnostic code is not recommended. Many newer AEDs require no drug level monitoring, so requiring an AED level monitoring procedure in algorithms to identify epilepsy is not recommended.
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 | 0.035 | 0.205 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".