MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2541451795 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20160128

Validity of Canadian discharge abstract data for hypertension and diabetes from 2002 to 2013

2016· article· en· W2541451795 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiabetes mellitusMedicineDatabaseHospital dischargeCoding (social sciences)Predictive validityPredictive valuePositive predicative valueDiagnosis codePharmacoepidemiologyEmergency medicineInternal medicinePopulationStatisticsEndocrinologyEnvironmental healthClinical psychologyComputer scienceMedical prescription

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surveillance using coded administrative health data has shown that the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes in Canada increased substantially between 1998 to 2008. These findings require an assumption that the validity of hypertension and diabetes coding is stable over time. We tested this assumption by examining temporal trends in the validity of coding for hypertension and diabetes in the Canadian hospital Discharge Abstract Database. METHODS: We used the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) database, a clinical registry, as the reference standard to evaluate the validity of the Discharge Abstract Database in recording hypertension and diabetes in Alberta. The APPROACH database contains data for all Alberta residents who have undergone cardiac catheterization and includes prospective ascertainment of comorbid conditions before each procedure. We linked patient data between the 2 databases for 2002 to 2013 using patient provincial health number. Temporal trends in sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and Cohen κ were calculated for both hypertension and diabetes in the Discharge Abstract Database. RESULTS: We matched 63 483 patients between the APPROACH database and the Discharge Abstract Database. The validity of the Discharge Abstract Database for hypertension and diabetes remained mostly consistent over time. Between 2002 and 2013, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value ranged from 66% to 87% for hypertension and from 81% to 98% for diabetes; the corresponding κ scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.62 and from 0.80 to 0.89. No significant differences in the validity of coding were found across age, sex or hospital location subgroups. INTERPRETATION: The validity of coding for hypertension and diabetes in the Discharge Abstract Database remained fairly consistent between 2002 and 2013. Our findings support the use of the Discharge Abstract Database for hypertension and diabetes surveillance in hospital settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.506
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.044 · 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