Overcoming barriers to population-based injury research: development and validation of an ICD-10–to–AIS algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospital administrative databases are a useful source of population-level data on injured patients; however, these databases use the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) system, which does not provide a direct means of estimating injury severity. We created and validated a crosswalk to derive Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores from injury-related diagnostic codes in the tenth revision of the ICD (ICD-10). METHODS: We assessed the validity of the crosswalk using data from the Ontario Trauma Registry Comprehensive Data Set (OTRCDS). The AIS and Injury Severity Scores (ISS) derived using the algorithm were compared with those assigned by expert abstractors. We evaluated the ability of the algorithm to identify patients with AIS scores of 3 or greater. We used κ and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) as measures of concordance. RESULTS: In total, 10 431 patients were identified in the OTRCDS. The algorithm accurately identified patients with at least 1 AIS score of 3 or greater (κ 0.65), as well as patients with a head AIS score of 3 or greater (κ 0.78). Mapped and abstracted ISS were similar; ICC across the entire cohort was 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.81-0.84), indicating good agreement. When comparing mapped and abstracted ISS, the difference between scores was 10 or less in 87% of patients. Concordance between mapped and abstracted ISS was similar across strata of age, mechanism of injury and mortality. CONCLUSION: Our ICD-10-to-AIS algorithm produces reliable estimates of injury severity from data available in administrative databases. This algorithm can facilitate the use of administrative data for population-based injury research in jurisdictions using ICD-10.
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 | 0.074 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".