Identifying Patients With Atrial Fibrillation in Administrative Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identifying patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) using administrative data is important for epidemiologic and outcomes research. Although administrative data cover large populations, it is necessary to assess their validity in identifying AF patients. METHODS: We used Ontario family physician electronic medical records from the Electronic Medical Record Administrative data Linked Database (EMRALD) as a reference standard to assess the accuracy of administrative data algorithms in identifying patients with AF. From a random sample of 7500 adult patients, patients with AF as recorded in family physician records were identified. RESULTS: The optimal algorithm consisted of any of: hospitalization or an emergency room code for AF or prescription for an AF-specific antiarrhythmic agent or billing code for cardioversion, or prescription for an anticoagulant that was accompanied by a physician billing code. for arrhythmia. The algorithm sensitivity was 80.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.1-86.3), specificity 99.1% (95% CI, 98.9-99.3), positive predictive value 71.1% (95% CI, 65.1-77.1), and negative predictive value 99.5% (95% CI, 99.3-99.7). This algorithm, applied to the Ontario population, resulted in a calculated increase in AF prevalence from 1.68% to 2.36% over the years 2000-2014. Anticoagulation rates for AF patients increased from 53% in 2011 to 60% in 2014. Among AF patients receiving anticoagulants, novel oral anticoagulant utilization increased from < 5% in 2011 to > 50% in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying patients with AF can be done using administrative data, and the algorithm can be used to assess trends in disease burden over time and patterns of care in large populations.
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".