Diagnostic Accuracy of Transient Ischemic Attack from Physician Claims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospitalization data underestimate the occurrence of transient ischemic attack (TIA). As TIA is frequently diagnosed in primary care, methodologies for the accurate ascertainment of a TIA from physician claims data are required for surveillance and health systems planning in this population. The present study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of multiple algorithms for TIA from a longitudinal population-based physician billing database. METHODS: Population-based administrative data from the province of British Columbia were used to identify the base population (1992-2007; N=102,492). Using discharge records for hospital admissions for acute ischemic stroke with a recent (<90 days) TIA as the reference standard, we performed receiver-operating characteristic analyses to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and overall accuracy, and to compare area under the curve for each physician billing algorithm. To evaluate the impact of different case definitions on population-based TIA burden, we also estimated the annual TIA occurrence associated with each algorithm. RESULTS: Physician billing algorithms showed low to moderate sensitivity, with the algorithm for two consecutive physician visits within 90 days showing the highest sensitivity at 37.7% (CI 95%=37.4-38.1). All algorithms demonstrated high specificity and moderate to high overall accuracy, resulting in low positive predictive values (≤5%), low discriminability (0.53-0.57) and high false positive rates (1 - specificity). Population-based estimates of TIA occurrence were comparable to prior studies and declined over time. CONCLUSIONS: Physician billing data have insufficient sensitivity to identify TIAs but may be used in combination with hospital discharge data to improve the accuracy of estimating the population-based occurrence of TIAs.
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 | 0.009 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".