Development of a validated algorithm for the diagnosis of paediatric asthma in electronic medical records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An accurate estimation of the prevalence of paediatric asthma in Alberta and elsewhere is hampered by uncertainty regarding disease definition and diagnosis. Electronic medical records (EMRs) provide a rich source of clinical data from primary-care practices that can be used in better understanding the occurrence of the disease. The Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) database includes cleaned data extracted from the EMRs of primary-care practitioners. The purpose of the study was to develop and validate a case definition of asthma in children 1-17 who consult family physicians, in order to provide primary-care estimates of childhood asthma in Alberta as accurately as possible. The validation involved the comparison of the application of a theoretical algorithm (to identify patients with asthma) to a physician review of records included in the CPCSSN database (to confirm an accurate diagnosis). The comparison yielded 87.4% sensitivity, 98.6% specificity and a positive and negative predictive value of 91.2% and 97.9%, respectively, in the age group 1-17 years. The algorithm was also run for ages 3-17 and 6-17 years, and was found to have comparable statistical values. Overall, the case definition and algorithm yielded strong sensitivity and specificity metrics and was found valid for use in research in CPCSSN primary-care practices. The use of the validated asthma algorithm may improve insight into the prevalence, diagnosis, and management of paediatric asthma in Alberta and Canada.
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 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".