MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1865733602 · doi:10.1684/ejd.2015.2606

Validating the diagnostic code for acne in a tertiary care dermatology centre

2015· article· en· W1865733602 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Dermatology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and Effects
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcneDermatologyTertiary careFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Administrative databases provide valuable patient data and are used to conduct population-based studies. However, no studies have been conducted to validate the codes for dermatological conditions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of ICD 9 code 706 for acne. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of patients seen in dermatology clinics at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre between March 1 and May 31, 2013. The billing code for a clinic visit was compared to the diagnosis documented in the medical chart. RESULTS: There were 4,248 participants; 201 with an ICD-9 code of acne. This code had a PPV and sensitivity with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of 84.58% (78.67-89.13%) and 86.29% (80.51-90.62%), respectively. The specificity was 99.20% (98.86-99.45%). CONCLUSIONS: We showed that ICD-9 code 706 can be used to accurately identify patients with acne in a dermatology setting. This information can be applied to future epidemiologic studies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.261 · 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