MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2503745853 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009952

Systematic review of validated case definitions for diabetes in ICD-9-coded and ICD-10-coded data in adult populations

2016· review· en· W2503745853 on OpenAlexafffund
Bushra Khokhar, Nathalie Jetté, Amy Metcalfe, Ceara Cunningham, Hude Quan, Gilaad G. Kaplan, Sonia Butalia, Doreen M. Rabi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersCumming School of Medicine, University of CalgaryCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusMEDLINEPopulationDiagnosis codePredictive valueEpidemiologyInternal medicineFamily medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: With steady increases in 'big data' and data analytics over the past two decades, administrative health databases have become more accessible and are now used regularly for diabetes surveillance. The objective of this study is to systematically review validated International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-based case definitions for diabetes in the adult population. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND OUTCOME MEASURES: Electronic databases, MEDLINE and Embase, were searched for validation studies where an administrative case definition (using ICD codes) for diabetes in adults was validated against a reference and statistical measures of the performance reported. RESULTS: The search yielded 2895 abstracts, and of the 193 potentially relevant studies, 16 met criteria. Diabetes definition for adults varied by data source, including physician claims (sensitivity ranged from 26.9% to 97%, specificity ranged from 94.3% to 99.4%, positive predictive value (PPV) ranged from 71.4% to 96.2%, negative predictive value (NPV) ranged from 95% to 99.6% and κ ranged from 0.8 to 0.9), hospital discharge data (sensitivity ranged from 59.1% to 92.6%, specificity ranged from 95.5% to 99%, PPV ranged from 62.5% to 96%, NPV ranged from 90.8% to 99% and κ ranged from 0.6 to 0.9) and a combination of both (sensitivity ranged from 57% to 95.6%, specificity ranged from 88% to 98.5%, PPV ranged from 54% to 80%, NPV ranged from 98% to 99.6% and κ ranged from 0.7 to 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, administrative health databases are useful for undertaking diabetes surveillance, but an awareness of the variation in performance being affected by case definition is essential. The performance characteristics of these case definitions depend on the variations in the definition of primary diagnosis in ICD-coded discharge data and/or the methodology adopted by the healthcare facility to extract information from patient records.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.133
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.133
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.006
Bibliometrics0.0190.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.711
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.101 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations129
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicMedical Coding and Health InformationFrench-language works237,207