MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2200136802 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20150060

Validity and utility of ICD-10 administrative health data for identifying ST- and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction based on physician chart review

2015· article· en· W2200136802 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionICD-10CohortDiagnosis codeChartMedical diagnosisPopulationAcute careST elevationEmergency medicineInternal medicineHealth careMedical emergencyCardiologyIntensive care medicineStatisticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health care administrative databases are useful for assessing the population-level burden of disease and examining issues related to access, costs and quality of care. In these databases, the diagnoses and procedures are coded with the use of the World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases (ICD). We examined the validity of 2 ICD-10 coding definitions for categorizing patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) as having ST-elevation MI (STEMI) or non-ST-elevation MI (non-STEMI). METHODS: Charts of patients with acute MI discharged between April and June 2007 from 3 hospitals in Edmonton, were reviewed to define the acute MI subtype (i.e., STEMI v. non-STEMI). The agreement between clinician chart review and STEMI/non-STEMI classification based on the standard (ICD-10 I21.x) and the supplementary electrocardiogram (ECG) codes (R94.3x) was determined. We assessed the effect of these alternative definitions on in-hospital mortality estimates by applying them to the data for all patients with acute MI admitted to hospital in the province from April 2007 to March 2010. RESULTS: Of the 297 patients, 49.2% were identified as having STEMI based on chart review, 44.4% using the standard definition, and 44.1% using the ECG definition. Both the standard and ECG definitions provided high agreement (92% for STEMI and 100% for non-STEMI) with the chart review classification. In the larger population-level cohort (n = 15 148), use of the standard definition or the ECG definition did not affect in-hospital mortality estimates for patients with STEMI and those with non-STEMI. INTERPRETATION: The standard definition appears equivalent to the definition using supplementary ECG codes to subcategorize patients with acute MI as having STEMI or non-STEMI. These findings may be relevant for the development of later versions of ICD codes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.362
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.129 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it