Identifying patients with asthma in primary care electronic medical record systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To develop and test a variety of electronic medical record (EMR) search algorithms to allow clinicians to accurately identify their patients with asthma in order to enable improved care. Design A retrospective chart analysis identified 5 relevant unique EMR information fields (electronic disease registry, cumulative patient profile, billing diagnostic code, medications, and chart notes); asthma-related search terms were designated for each field. The accuracy of each term was tested for its ability to identify the asthma patients among all patients whose charts were reviewed. Increasingly sophisticated search algorithms were then designed and evaluated by serially combining individual searches with Boolean operators. Setting Two large academic primary care clinics in Hamilton, Ont. Participants Charts for 600 randomly selected patients aged 16 years and older identified in an initial EMR search as likely having asthma (n = 150), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 150), other respiratory conditions (n = 150), or nonrespiratory conditions (n = 150) were reviewed until 100 patients per category were identified (or until all available names were exhausted). A total of 398 charts were reviewed in full and included. Main outcome measures Sensitivity and specificity of each search for asthma diagnosis (against the reference standard of a physician chart review–based diagnosis). Results Two physicians reviewed the charts identified in the initial EMR search using a standardized data collection form and ascribed the following diagnoses in 398 patients: 112 (28.1%) had asthma, 81 (20.4%) had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 104 (26.1%) had other respiratory conditions, and 101 (25.4%) had nonrespiratory conditions. Concordance between reviewers in chart abstraction diagnosis was high (κ = 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97). Overall, the algorithm searching for patients who had asthma in their cumulative patient profiles or for whom an asthma billing code had been used was the most accurate (sensitivity of 90.2%, 95% CI 87.3% to 93.1%; specificity of 83.9%, 95% CI 80.3% to 87.5%). Conclusion Usable, practical search algorithms that accurately identify patients with asthma in existing EMRs are presented. Clinicians can apply 1 of these algorithms to generate asthma registries for targeted quality improvement initiatives and outcome measurements. This methodology can be emulated for other diseases.
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 | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".