Identification of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in administrative healthcare databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to validate and compare decision rules for the identification of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in administrative healthcare databases. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using administrative health care data from a population of 1 million people with access to universal healthcare. Information was available on hospital discharges and physician billings over a 10-year period. Each SLE case was matched 4:1 by age and gender to randomly selected controls. Seven case definitions were applied to identify SLE cases and their performance compared with the diagnosis by a rheumatologist. RESULTS: We identified 373 SLE cases and 1492 non-SLE controls, all of whom had been reviewed by a rheumatologist. The overall accuracy of the case definitions for SLE cases varied between 88.2-95.6% with a kappa statistic between 0.53-0.86. The sensitivity varied from 41.0-86.6% and the specificity between 92.4-99.9%. In a total reference population of 1 million the mean estimated annual incidence of SLE was between 29-255 and the mean estimated annual prevalence was between 172-920. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of case definitions for the identification of SLE patients in administrative healthcare databases is variable and this should be considered when comparing results across studies. This variability may also be used to advantage in different study designs depending on the relative importance of sensitivity and specificity for identifying the population of interest to the research question.
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 | 0.045 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".