MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334369563 · doi:10.1186/s40697-016-0108-7

Validation of Administrative Database Codes for Acute Kidney Injury in Kidney Transplant Recipients

2016· article· en· W2334369563 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amber O. Molnar, Carl van Walraven, Eric McArthur, Dean Fergusson, Amit X. Garg, Greg Knoll

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute kidney injuryDiagnosis codeCreatininePopulationKidney diseaseInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyNephrologyKidney transplantationCohortIntensive care medicineKidneyEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Validation studies of acute kidney injury (AKI) diagnostic codes performed in the general population have shown poor sensitivity, but the accuracy of such codes in the kidney transplant population remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine the accuracy of AKI diagnostic codes in kidney transplant recipients. We hypothesized that the sensitivity of diagnostic codes would be significantly greater in the kidney transplant population since these patients are closely followed by nephrologists and are more likely to have serum creatinine measured. DESIGN: The design is a population-based retrospective cohort study using healthcare administrative and laboratory databases. SETTING: The setting is in Southwestern Ontario and Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2012. PATIENTS: We included first-time kidney transplant recipients admitted to hospital for whom serum creatinine was measured in hospital and within 6 months prior (n = 524). METHODS: Patients meeting the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) classification serum creatinine change criteria were classified as having AKI. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values for the ICD-10-CA code for AKI when present as an admission diagnosis, most responsible diagnosis, or any diagnosis compared to a reference standard of AKI defined by the AKIN criteria (stage 1 or greater, stage 2 or greater, or stage 3). RESULTS: Forty-five percent of included kidney transplant patients had a diagnosis of AKI. The most sensitive coding algorithm (reference standard AKIN stage 2 or greater, ICD-10 code present as any diagnosis) had a sensitivity of 42.1 % (95 % CI 31.7, 53.3), a specificity of 90.6 % (95 % CI 87.6, 93.0), and a positive likelihood ratio of 4.5. The median (IQR) rise in serum creatinine from baseline in patients with and without AKI codes was 104 (57 to 158) μmol/L and 16 (-3 to 41) μmol/L, respectively (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: The low sensitivity of the AKI code may be due to an alternative diagnosis of acute rejection being assigned in certain cases. The cause of AKI could not be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to the general population, the ICD-10 N17x code misses many kidney transplant patients with AKI during their hospitalization. This makes the code unusable for studying the incidence and consequences of AKI in hospitalized kidney transplant patients.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207