An administrative data merging solution for dealing with missing data in a clinical registry: adaptation from ICD-9 to ICD-10
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Metaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
- Consensus categories
- Metaresearch
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Simulation or modelingConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: MethodsConsensus signal: Methods
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.861
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.098 | 0.315 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We have previously described a method for dealing with missing data in a prospective cardiac registry initiative. The method involves merging registry data to corresponding ICD-9-CM administrative data to fill in missing data 'holes'. Here, we describe the process of translating our data merging solution to ICD-10, and then validating its performance. METHODS: A multi-step translation process was undertaken to produce an ICD-10 algorithm, and merging was then implemented to produce complete datasets for 1995-2001 based on the ICD-9-CM coding algorithm, and for 2002-2005 based on the ICD-10 algorithm. We used cardiac registry data for patients undergoing cardiac catheterization in fiscal years 1995-2005. The corresponding administrative data records were coded in ICD-9-CM for 1995-2001 and in ICD-10 for 2002-2005. The resulting datasets were then evaluated for their ability to predict death at one year. RESULTS: The prevalence of the individual clinical risk factors increased gradually across years. There was, however, no evidence of either an abrupt drop or rise in prevalence of any of the risk factors. The performance of the new data merging model was comparable to that of our previously reported methodology: c-statistic = 0.788 (95% CI 0.775, 0.802) for the ICD-10 model versus c-statistic = 0.784 (95% CI 0.780, 0.790) for the ICD-9-CM model. The two models also exhibited similar goodness-of-fit. CONCLUSION: The ICD-10 implementation of our data merging method performs as well as the previously-validated ICD-9-CM method. Such methodological research is an essential prerequisite for research with administrative data now that most health systems are transitioning to ICD-10.
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.
The record
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Topic
- Medical Coding and Health Information
- Field
- Health Professions
- Canadian institutions
- Provincial Health Services AuthorityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchEli Lilly CanadaFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleW. Garfield Weston FoundationEli Lilly and CompanyUniversity of AlbertaGovernment of CanadaBoston Scientific Corporation
- Keywords
- Missing dataStatisticMedicineData miningICD-10Computer scienceStatisticsMathematicsMachine learning
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes