Validation of diabetes case definitions using administrative claims data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Our aim was to validate three diabetes case definitions for children and adolescents aged <20 years in Canada using administrative and clinical data in the province of British Columbia. METHODS: We identified potential cases of diabetes from physician claims, hospitalizations and prescription drug records between 1992/1993 and 2007/2008 using the three different case definitions, which included a national standard as well as two regionally developed case definitions. Each case definition used a different combination of administrative data; however, only one definition used prescription drug records. The sensitivity of each definition was calculated against the 'gold standard' of diagnosed cases recorded in British Columbia's Children's Hospital Endocrinology and Diabetes Unit clinical database. RESULTS: During this time period, 2611 patients were seen at the British Columbia's Children's Hospital. The sensitivities (95% CIs) of the national and two regional case definitions were 0.95 (0.941-0.958), 0.97 (0.964-0.977) and 0.82 (0.800-0.830), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the benefit of regional case definitions that exploit the availability of different data sources, but also support that a nationally derived definition is sensitive among children and adolescents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".