MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2349894692

Charts versus Discharge ICD-10 Coding for Sternal Wound Infection Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

2015· article· en· W2349894692 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle A. Southern, Christopher Doherty, Michael A. De Souza, Hude Quan, A. Robertson Harrop, Duncan Nickerson, Doreen M. Rabi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical site infection prevention
Canadian institutionsPetrel Robertson Consulting (Canada)University of CalgaryFoothills Medical CentreHand and Upper Limb Clinic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalCohortBypass graftingAlgorithmConventional PCICoding (social sciences)Internal medicineArteryICD-10CardiologySurgeryStatisticsComputer scienceMyocardial infarctionMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sternal wound infection (SWI) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) can carry a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. The objective of this work is to describe the methods used to identify cases of SWI in an administrative database and to demonstrate the effectiveness of using an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) coding algorithm for this purpose. METHODS: ICD-10 codes were used to identify cases of SWI within one year of CABG between April 2002 and November 2009. We randomly chose 200 charts for detailed chart review (100 from each of the groups coded as having SWI and not having SWI) to determine the utility of the ICD-10 coding algorithm. RESULTS: There were 2,820 patients undergoing CABG. Of these, 264 (9.4 percent) were coded as having SWI. Thirty-eight cases of SWI were identified by chart review. The ICD-10 coding algorithm of T81.3 or T81.4 was able to identify incident SWI with a positive predictive value of 35 percent and a negative predictive value of 97 percent. The agreement between the ICD-10 coding algorithm and presence of SWI remained fair, with an overall kappa coefficient of 0.32 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.22-0.43). The effectiveness of identifying deep SWI cases is also presented. CONCLUSIONS: This article describes an effective algorithm for identifying a cohort of patients with SWI following open sternotomy in large databases using ICD-10 coding. In addition, alternative search strategies are presented to suit researchers' needs.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSurgical site infection preventionFrench-language works237,207