Validation of a Case Definition for Pediatric Brain Injury Using Administrative Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health administrative data are a common population-based data source for traumatic brain injury (TBI) surveillance and research; however, before using these data for surveillance, it is important to develop a validated case definition. The objective of this study was to identify the optimal International Classification of Disease , edition 10 (ICD-10), case definition to ascertain children with TBI in emergency room (ER) or hospital administrative data. We tested multiple case definitions. METHODS: Children who visited the ER were identified from the Regional Emergency Department Information System at Alberta Children's Hospital. Secondary data were collected for children with trauma, musculoskeletal, or central nervous system complaints who visited the ER between October 5, 2005, and June 6, 2007. TBI status was determined based on chart review. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each case definition. RESULTS: Of 6639 patients, 1343 had a TBI. The best case definition was, "1 hospital or 1 ER encounter coded with an ICD-10 code for TBI in 1 year" (sensitivity 69.8% [95% confidence interval (CI), 67.3-72.2], specificity 96.7% [95% CI, 96.2-97.2], PPV 84.2% [95% CI 82.0-86.3], NPV 92.7% [95% CI, 92.0-93.3]). The nonspecific code S09.9 identified >80% of TBI cases in our study. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal ICD-10-based case definition for pediatric TBI in this study is valid and should be considered for future pediatric TBI surveillance studies. However, external validation is recommended before use in other jurisdictions, particularly because it is plausible that a larger proportion of patients in our cohort had milder injuries.
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 | 0.094 | 0.191 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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".