Validity of congenital malformation diagnostic codes recorded in Québec's administrative databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the validity of the diagnostic codes of congenital malformations (CMs) recorded in two of Québec's administrative databases. METHODS: A cohort of pregnancies and infants born to asthmatic and non-asthmatic women in 1990-2002 was reconstructed using Québec's administrative databases. From this cohort, we selected 269 infants with a CM and 144 without CM born to asthmatic women, together with 284 and 138 infants, respectively, born to non-asthmatic women. The diagnoses of CMs recorded in the databases were compared with the diagnoses written by the physicians in the infants' medical charts. The positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) for all, major, and several specific CMs were estimated. RESULTS: The PPVs for all CMs and major CMs were 82.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 78.5%-85.9%) and 78.1% (74.1%-82.1%), respectively, in the asthmatic group and were 79.2% (75.4%-83.1%) and 69.0% (64.6%-73.4%), respectively, in the non-asthmatic group. PPVs >80% were found for several specific CMs, including cardiac, cleft, and limb CMs in both groups. The NPV for any CM was 88.2% (95% CI: 85.1%-91.3%) in the asthmatic group and 94.2% (92.2%-96.2%) in the non-asthmatic group. CONCLUSIONS: Québec's administrative databases are valid tools for epidemiological research of CMs. The results were similar between infants born to women with and without asthma.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".