Incidence of Appendicitis over Time: A Comparative Analysis of an Administrative Healthcare Database and a Pathology-Proven Appendicitis Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: At the turn of the 21st century, studies evaluating the change in incidence of appendicitis over time have reported inconsistent findings. OBJECTIVES: We compared the differences in the incidence of appendicitis derived from a pathology registry versus an administrative database in order to validate coding in administrative databases and establish temporal trends in the incidence of appendicitis. DESIGN: We conducted a population-based comparative cohort study to identify all individuals with appendicitis from 2000 to2008. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Two population-based data sources were used to identify cases of appendicitis: 1) a pathology registry (n = 8,822); and 2) a hospital discharge abstract database (n = 10,453). INTERVENTION & MAIN OUTCOME: The administrative database was compared to the pathology registry for the following a priori analyses: 1) to calculate the positive predictive value (PPV) of administrative codes; 2) to compare the annual incidence of appendicitis; and 3) to assess differences in temporal trends. Temporal trends were assessed using a generalized linear model that assumed a Poisson distribution and reported as an annual percent change (APC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Analyses were stratified by perforated and non-perforated appendicitis. RESULTS: The administrative database (PPV = 83.0%) overestimated the incidence of appendicitis (100.3 per 100,000) when compared to the pathology registry (84.2 per 100,000). Codes for perforated appendicitis were not reliable (PPV = 52.4%) leading to overestimation in the incidence of perforated appendicitis in the administrative database (34.8 per 100,000) as compared to the pathology registry (19.4 per 100,000). The incidence of appendicitis significantly increased over time in both the administrative database (APC = 2.1%; 95% CI: 1.3, 2.8) and pathology registry (APC = 4.1; 95% CI: 3.1, 5.0). CONCLUSION & RELEVANCE: The administrative database overestimated the incidence of appendicitis, particularly among perforated appendicitis. Therefore, studies utilizing administrative data to analyze perforated appendicitis should be interpreted cautiously.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".