Does Date Stamping ICD‐9‐CM Codes Increase the Value of Clinical Information in Administrative Data?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Comorbidity measures are designed to exclude complications when they map International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9-CM) codes to diagnostic categories. The use of data fields that indicates whether each secondary diagnosis was present at the time of hospital admission may lead to the more accurate identification of preexisting conditions. OBJECTIVE: To examine the rate of misclassification of ICD-9-CM codes into diagnostic categories by the Dartmouth-Manitoba adaptation of the Charlson index and by the Elixhauser comorbidity algorithm. DATA SOURCE: Analysis of 178,838 patients in the California State Inpatient Database (CA SID) admitted in 2000 for one of seven major medical and surgical conditions. The CA SID includes a condition present at admission (CPAA) modifier for each ICD-9-CM code. STUDY DESIGN: The Dartmouth/Charlson index and the Elixhauser comorbidity measure were used to map the ICD-9-CM codes into diagnostic categories for patients in each study population. We calculated the misclassification rate for each mapping algorithm, using information from the CPAA as the "gold standard." PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The Dartmouth/Charlson index underestimated the prevalence of hemiplegia/paraplegia by 70 percent, cerebrovascular disease by 70 percent, myocardial infarction by 65 percent, congestive heart failure (CHF) by 45 percent, and peptic ulcer disease by 34 percent. The Elixhauser algorithm misclassified complications as preexisting conditions for 43 percent of the coagulopathies, 25 percent of the fluid and electrolyte disorders, 18 percent of the cardiac arrhythmias, 18 percent of the cardiac arrhythmias, and 9 percent of the cases of CHF. CONCLUSION: Adding the CPAA modifier to administrative data would significantly enhance the ability of the Dartmouth/Charlson index and of the Elixhauser algorithm to map ICD-9-CM codes to diagnostic categories accurately.
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 | 0.134 | 0.582 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".