MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039288075 · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzu064

International variation in the definition of ‘main condition’ in ICD-coded health data: Table 1

2014· article· en· W2039288075 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesOttawa HospitalCanadian Institute for Health InformationUniversity of Calgary
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityAlberta Innovates
KeywordsHarmonizationICD-10Reliability (semiconductor)Health careMedicineMedical recordActuarial scienceComputer scienceBusinessEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hospital-based medical records are abstracted to create International Classification of Disease (ICD) coded discharge health data in many countries. The 'main condition' is not defined in a consistent manner internationally. Some countries employ a 'reason for admission' rule as the basis for the main condition, while other countries employ a 'resource use' rule. A few countries have recently transitioned from one of these approaches to the other. The definition of 'main condition' in such ICD data matters when it is used to define a disease cohort to assign diagnosis-related groups and to perform risk adjustment. We propose a method of harmonizing the international definition to enable researchers and international organizations using ICD-coded health data to aggregate or compare hospital care and outcomes across countries in a consistent manner. Inter-observer reliability of alternative harmonization approaches should be evaluated before finalizing the definition and adopting it worldwide.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.400
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.176 · 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