Coding of obesity in administrative hospital discharge abstract data: accuracy and impact for future research studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity is a pervasive problem and a popular subject of academic assessment. The ability to take advantage of existing data, such as administrative databases, to study obesity is appealing. The objective of our study was to assess the validity of obesity coding in an administrative database and compare the association between obesity and outcomes in an administrative database versus registry. METHODS: This study was conducted using a coronary catheterization registry and an administrative database (Discharge Abstract Database (DAD)). A Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 within the registry defined obesity. In the DAD obesity was defined by diagnosis codes E65-E68 (ICD-10). The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) of an obesity diagnosis in the DAD was determined using obesity diagnosis in the registry as the referent. The association between obesity and outcomes was assessed. RESULTS: The study population of 17380 subjects was largely male (68.8%) with a mean BMI of 27.0 kg/m2. Obesity prevalence was lower in the DAD than registry (2.4% vs. 20.3%). A diagnosis of obesity in the DAD had a sensitivity 7.75%, specificity 98.98%, NPV 80.84% and PPV 65.94%. Obesity was associated with decreased risk of death or re-hospitalization, though non-significantly within the DAD. Obesity was significantly associated with an increased risk of cardiac procedure in both databases. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, obesity was poorly coded in the DAD. However, when coded, it was coded accurately. Administrative databases are not an optimal datasource for obesity prevalence and incidence surveillance but could be used to define obese cohorts for follow-up.
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 | 0.220 | 0.467 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".