The accuracy of <scp>I</scp>nternational <scp>C</scp>lassification of <scp>D</scp>iseases coding for dental problems not associated with trauma in a hospital emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) visits for nontraumatic dental conditions (NTDCs) may be a sign of unmet need for dental care. The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of the International Classification of Diseases codes (ICD-10-CA) for ED visits for NTDC. METHODS: ED visits in 2008-2099 at one hospital in Toronto were identified if the discharge diagnosis in the administrative database system was an ICD-10-CA code for a NTDC (K00-K14). A random sample of 100 visits was selected, and the medical records for these visits were reviewed by a dentist. The description of the clinical signs and symptoms were evaluated, and a diagnosis was assigned. This diagnosis was compared with the diagnosis assigned by the physician and the code assigned to the visit. RESULTS: The 100 ED visits reviewed were associated with 16 different ICD-10-CA codes for NTDC. Only 2 percent of these visits were clearly caused by trauma. The code K0887 (toothache) was the most frequent diagnostic code (31 percent). We found 43.3 percent disagreement on the discharge diagnosis reported by the physician, and 58.0 percent disagreement on the code in the administrative database assigned by the abstractor, compared with what it was suggested by the dentist reviewing the chart. CONCLUSION: There are substantial discrepancies between the ICD-10-CA diagnosis assigned in administrative databases and the diagnosis assigned by a dentist reviewing the chart retrospectively. However, ICD-10-CA codes can be used to accurately identify ED visits for NTDC.
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 | 0.008 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".