MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does Date Stamping ICD‐9‐CM Codes Increase the Value of Clinical Information in Administrative Data?

2005· article· en· W2046795159 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Services Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityDartmouth College
KeywordsMedicineDiagnosis codeComorbidityEmergency medicineHeart failureMyocardial infarctionICD-10PopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.601
GPT teacher head0.670
Teacher spread0.069 · 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