Validated methods for identifying tuberculosis patients in health administrative databases: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of studies are using health administrative databases for tuberculosis (TB) research. However, there are limitations to using such databases for identifying patients with TB. OBJECTIVE: To summarise validated methods for identifying TB in health administrative databases. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in two databases (Ovid Medline and Embase, January 1980-January 2016). We limited the search to diagnostic accuracy studies assessing algorithms derived from drug prescription, International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnostic code and/or laboratory data for identifying patients with TB in health administrative databases. RESULTS: The search identified 2413 unique citations. Of the 40 full-text articles reviewed, we included 14 in our review. Algorithms and diagnostic accuracy outcomes to identify TB varied widely across studies, with positive predictive value ranging from 1.3% to 100% and sensitivity ranging from 20% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy measures of algorithms using out-patient, in-patient and/or laboratory data to identify patients with TB in health administrative databases vary widely across studies. Use solely of ICD diagnostic codes to identify TB, particularly when using out-patient records, is likely to lead to incorrect estimates of case numbers, given the current limitations of ICD systems in coding TB.
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 | 0.031 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".