MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510625620 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20160009

Using physician billing claims from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan to determine individual influenza vaccination status: an updated validation study

2016· article· en· W2510625620 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kevin L. Schwartz, Nathaniel Jembere, Michael A. Campitelli, Sarah A. Buchan, Hannah Chung, Jeffrey C. Kwong

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationInfluenza vaccineDiagnosis codePopulationFamily medicineSeasonal influenzaEnvironmental healthInternal medicineImmunologyDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.300
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.153 · 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.

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

Citations41
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207