Myocardial infarction and the validation of physician billing and hospitalization data using electronic medical records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Population-based identification of patients with a myocardial infarction is limited to patients presenting to hospital with an acute event. We set out to determine if adding physician billing data to hospital discharge data would result in an accurate capture of patients who have had a myocardial infarction. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart abstraction of 969 randomly selected adult patients using data abstracted from primary care physicians on an electronic medical record in Ontario, Canada, as the reference standard. RESULTS: An algorithm of 3 physician billings in a one-year period with at least one being by a specialist or within a hospital or emergency room plus one hospital discharge abstract performed with a sensitivity of 80.4% (95% CI: 69.5-91.3), specificity of 98.0% (95% CI: 97.1-98.9), positive predictive value of 69.5% (95% CI: 57.7-81.2), negative predictive value of 98.9% (95% CI: 98.2% to 99.6%) and kappa statistic of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.63-0.83). CONCLUSION: Using a combination of hospital discharge abstracts and physician billing data may be the best way of assessing trends of MI occurrence over time since it increases the capture of MI beyond those patients who have been hospitalized.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".