Using physician billing claims from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan to determine individual influenza vaccination status: an updated validation study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Owing to the absence of a vaccination registry in Ontario, administrative data are currently the best available source to determine population-based individual-level influenza vaccination status. Our objective was to validate physician billing claims for influenza vaccination in the Ontario Health Insurance Plan database against the Canadian Community Health Survey. METHODS: We used self-reported seasonal influenza vaccination status of Ontario residents surveyed between 2007 and 2009 as the reference standard. The survey responses were linked to physician claims database records to validate billing codes for influenza vaccination. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We stratified the data by several covariates and comorbidities to determine stratum-specific performance characteristics. We used these estimates to adjust an estimate of influenza vaccine effectiveness for the 2010/11 influenza season. RESULTS: For the 47 301 patients included in the analysis, the sensitivity for the billing codes was 49.8% (95% CI 49.0%-50.5%), specificity was 95.7% (95% CI 95.5%-96.0%), positive predictive value was 88.4% (95% CI 87.8%-89.0%) and negative predictive value was 74.5% (95% CI 74.0%-74.9%). Performance measures were optimized in patients aged 65 years and older, particularly those with comorbidities. INTERPRETATION: Although administrative data have limitations for determining influenza vaccination status, owing to the high positive predictive value, they are well suited for self-controlled study designs that are often used to assess vaccine safety. For studies of coverage and effectiveness, restricting the cohort to patients aged 65 years and older will minimize misclassification bias. Performance characteristics from this study can be used to mitigate misclassification bias.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it