Using Electronic Medical Record to Identify Patients With Dyslipidemia in Primary Care Settings: International Classification of Disease Code Matters From One Region to a National Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of the International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes for identifying patients with dyslipidemia in electronic medical record (EMR) data. METHODS: The EMRs of patients receiving primary care in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada, were retrieved from the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network database. International Classification of Disease codes were first compared with laboratory lipid data as an independent criterion standard, and next with a "comprehensive criterion standard," defined as any existence of abnormal lipid test, lipid-lowering medication record, or dyslipidemia ICD codes. The ability of ICD coding alone or combined with other components was evaluated against the two criterion standards using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and Kappa agreement. (No specificity was reported for the comparison of ICD codes against the comprehensive criterion standard as this naturally leads to 100% specificity.). RESULTS: The ICD codes led to a poor outcome when compared with the serum lipid levels (sensitivity, 27%; specificity, 76%; PPV, 71%; NPV, 33%; Kappa, 0.02; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 0.51) or with the comprehensive criterion standard (sensitivity, 32%; NPV, 25%; Kappa, 0.15; AUC, 66%). International Classification of Disease codes combined with lipid-lowering medication data also resulted in low sensitivity (51.2%), NPV (32%), Kappa (0.28), and AUC (75%). The addition of laboratory lipid levels to ICD coding marginally improved the algorithm (sensitivity, 94%; NPV, 79%; Kappa, 0.85; AUC, 97%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of ICD coding, either alone or in combination with laboratory data or lipid-lowering medication records, was not an accurate indicator in identifying dyslipidemia.
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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".