Under-coding of secondary conditions in coded hospital health data: impact of co-existing conditions, death status and number of codes in a record
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTObjectivesAdministrative health data including hospital discharge abstract data have been widely collected and analyzed for various purposes, including disease surveillance, case-mix costing, tracking healthcare system performance, policy-making and research. This study examined the coding validity of hypertension, diabetes, obesity and depression related to the presence of their co-existing conditions, death status and number of diagnosis codes in hospital discharge abstract data (DAD). ApproachWe randomly selected around 4000 DAD records from four teaching hospitals in Alberta, Canada and reviewed their charts to extract 31 conditions listed in Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices. Conditions associated with the four study conditions were identified through multivariable logistic regression. We examined the coding validity of the four study conditions related to whether their co-existing conditions were coded, whether the patient died in hospital and the total number of diagnosis codes recorded in a DAD record.Results Hypertension, diabetes, obesity and depression are generally secondary diagnosis and their validity are affected by the coding of their co-existing conditions. The sensitivity for the four conditions increased as the total number of diagnosis codes in the record increased. The impact of death status on coding validity for the four conditions was minimal.ConclusionThe coding validity of conditions is closely related to its clinical importance and complexity of patients’ case mix. We recommend mandatory coding of certain secondary diagnosis to meet the need of health research based on administrative health data.
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 | 0.073 | 0.283 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".