MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of Coding of Heart Failure and Comorbidities in Administrative and Clinical Data for Use in Outcomes Research

2005· article· en· W2036378305 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Care · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart InstituteSunnybrook Health Science CentreHeart and Stroke FoundationUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failureCoding (social sciences)MedicineMEDLINEIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicineStatisticsMathematicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the potential usefulness of administrative databases for evaluating outcomes, coding of heart failure and associated comorbidities have not been definitively compared with clinical data. OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive value of heart failure diagnoses and secondary conditions identified in a large administrative database with chart-based records. METHODS: The authors studied 1808 patient records sampled from 14 acute care hospitals and compared clinically recorded data with administrative records from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. The impact of comorbidity coding in the administrative data set according to the Charlson classification was examined in models of 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The positive predictive value (PPV) of a primary diagnosis ICD-9 428 was 94.3% using the Framingham criteria and 88.6% using criteria previously validated with pulmonary capillary wedge pressure. There was reduced prevalence of secondary comorbid conditions in administrative data in comparison with clinical chart data. The specificities and PPV/negative predictive values of administratively identified index comorbidities were high. The sensitivities of index comorbidities were low, but were enhanced by examination of hospitalizations within 1 year prior to the index heart failure admission. Using information from prior hospitalizations modestly enhanced 30-day mortality model performance; however, the odds ratio point estimates of the index and enhanced administrative data sets were consistent with the clinical model. CONCLUSION: The ICD-9 428 primary diagnosis is highly predictive of heart failure using clinical criteria. Examination of hospitalization data up to 1 year prior to the index admission improves comorbidity detection and may provide enhancements to future studies of heart failure mortality.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.836
GPT teacher head0.708
Teacher spread0.128 · 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