How accurate is ICD coding for epilepsy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Assess the validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 epilepsy coding from an emergency visit (ER) and a hospital discharge abstract database (DAD). METHODS: Two separate sources of patient records were reviewed and validated. (1) Charts of patients admitted to our seizure monitoring unit over 2 years (n = 127, ICD-10 coded records) were reviewed. Sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were calculated. (2) Random sample of charts for patients seen in the ER or admitted to hospital under any services, and whose charts were coded with epilepsy or an epilepsy-like condition, were reviewed. Two time-periods were selected to allow validation of both ICD-9-CM (n = 486) and ICD-10 coded (n = 454) records. Only PPV and NPV were calculated for these records. All charts were reviewed by two physicians to confirm the presence/absence of epilepsy and compare to administrative coding. RESULTS: Sample 1: Sn, Sp, PPV, and NPV of ICD-10 epilepsy coding from the seizure monitoring unit (SMU) chart review were 99%, 70%, 85%, and 97% respectively. Sample 2: The PPV and NPV for ICD-9-CM coding from the ER database were, respectively, 99% and 97% and from the DAD were 98% and 99%. The PPV and NPV for ICD-10 coding from the ER database were, respectively, 100% and 90% and from the DAD were 98% and 99%. The epilepsy subtypes grand mal status and partial epilepsy with complex partial seizures both had PPVs >75% (ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 data). DISCUSSION: Administrative emergency and hospital discharge data have high epilepsy coding validity overall in our health region.
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 | 0.024 | 0.234 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".