Validity of autism diagnoses using administrative health data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is necessary to monitor autism prevalence in order to plan education support and health services for affected children. This study was conducted to assess the accuracy of administrative health databases for autism diagnoses. Three administrative health databases from the province of Nova Scotia were used to identify diagnoses of autism spectrum disorders (ASD): the Hospital Discharge Abstract Database, the Medical Services Insurance Physician Billings Database and the Mental Health Outpatient Information System database. Seven algorithms were derived from combinations of requirements for single or multiple ASD claims from one or more of the three administrative databases. Diagnoses made by the Autism Team of the IWK Health Centre, using state-of-the-art autism diagnostic schedules, were compared with each algorithm, and the sensitivity, specificity and C-statistic (i.e. a measure of the discrimination ability of the model) were calculated. The algorithm with the best test characteristics was based on one ASD code in any of the three databases (sensitivity=69.3%). Sensitivity based on an ASD code in either the hospital or the physician billing databases was 62.5%. Administrative health databases are potentially a cost efficient source for conducting autism surveillance, especially when compared to methods involving the collection of new data. However, additional data sources are needed to improve the sensitivity and accuracy of identifying autism in Canada.
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 | 0.063 | 0.280 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".