MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1557384345 · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-161

ICD-10 coding algorithms for defining comorbidities of acute myocardial infarction

2006· article· en· W1557384345 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lawrence So, Dewey Evans, Hude Quan

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsProvincial Health Services AuthorityUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistry of Health, British ColumbiaFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsMedicineComorbidityICD-10Myocardial infarctionAlgorithmDiagnosis codeHeart failureHealth informaticsInternal medicineEmergency medicineIntensive care medicinePublic healthPopulationPathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With the introduction of ICD-10 throughout Canada, it is important to ensure that Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) comorbidities employed in risk adjustment methods remain valid and robust. Therefore, we developed ICD-10 coding algorithms for nine AMI comorbidities, examined the validity of the ICD-10 and ICD-9 coding algorithms in detection of these comorbidities, and assessed their performance in predicting mortality. The nine comorbidities that we examined were shock, diabetes with complications, congestive heart failure, cancer, cerebrovascular disease, pulmonary edema, acute renal failure, chronic renal failure, and cardiac dysrhythmias. METHODS: Coders generated a comprehensive list of ICD-10 codes corresponding to each AMI comorbidity. Physicians independently reviewed and determined the clinical relevance of each item on the list. To ensure that the newly developed ICD-10 coding algorithms were valid in recording comorbidities, medical charts were reviewed. After assessing ICD-10 algorithms' validity, both ICD-10 and ICD-9 algorithms were applied to a Canadian provincial hospital discharge database to predict in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Compared to chart review data as a 'criterion standard', ICD-9 and ICD-10 data had similar sensitivities (ranging from 7.1-100%), and specificities (above 93.6%) for each of the nine AMI comorbidities studied. The frequencies for the comorbidities were similar between ICD-9 and ICD-10 coding algorithms for 49,861 AMI patients in a Canadian province during 1994-2004. The C-statistics for predicting 30-day and 1 year mortality were the same for ICD-9 (0.82) and for ICD-10 data (0.81). CONCLUSION: The ICD-10 coding algorithms developed in this study to define AMI comorbidities performed similarly as past ICD-9 coding algorithms in detecting conditions and risk-adjustment in our sample. However, the ICD-10 coding algorithms should be further validated in external databases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.263
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations145
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicMedical Coding and Health InformationFrench-language works237,207