Validation of the Diagnostic Algorithms for 5 Chronic Conditions in the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN): A Kingston Practice-based Research Network (PBRN) Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the validity of electronic medical records-based diagnostic algorithms for 5 chronic conditions. METHODS: A retrospective validation study using primary chart abstraction. A standardized abstraction form was developed to ascertain diagnoses of diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and depression. Information about billing, laboratory tests, notes, specialist and hospital reports, and physiologic data was collected. An age-stratified random sample of 350 patient charts was selected from Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Approximately 90% of those charts were allocated to people aged ≥60 years. RESULTS: Three hundred thirteen patient records were included in the study. Patients' mean age was 68 years and 52% were women. High interrater reliability was indicated by 92% complete agreement and a κ statistic of 89.3%. The sensitivities of algorithms were 100% (diabetes), 83% (hypertension), 45% (osteoarthritis), 41% (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and 39% (depression). The lowest specificity was 97%, for depression. The positive predictive value ranged from 79% (depression) to 100%, and the negative predictive value ranged from 68% (osteoarthritis) to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic algorithms for diabetes and hypertension demonstrate adequate accuracy, thus allowing their use for research and policy-making purposes. The algorithms for the other 3 conditions require further refinement to attain better sensitivities.
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 | 0.043 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".