Chronic Disease Case Definitions for Electronic Medical Records: A Canadian Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTObjectivesCanadians are investing heavily in electronic medical records (EMRs) to inform primary care practice improvements. The Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) is a national practice-based network that has enrolled more than one million patients to date. Accurate CPCSSN EMR data are essential for unbiased research about chronic disease prevention and management. The study purpose was to test the accuracy of chronic disease case definitions in EMR data from one CPCSSN site. ApproachThis study linked CPCSSN EMR data, hospital records, physician billing claims, prescription drug records, and population registration files for the province of Manitoba. Individuals who had at least one encounter with a CPCSSN practice between 1998 and 2012, were at least 18 years of age, and had a minimum of two years of healthcare coverage before and after the study index date were included. Separate cohorts were defined for the following chronic diseases: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), depression, diabetes, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. Validated case definitions based on diagnoses in physician and hospital records and prescription drug data were used estimate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and kappa of each EMR chronic disease case definition. ResultsMore than 74,000 individuals were included in each cohort, except for COPD which had 51,000. Approximately half of each cohort was comprised of urban residents. The average age ranged from 45.9 years for individuals with depression to 65.3 years for individuals with COPD. Hypertension had the highest prevalence (22.0%) in EMR data followed by depression (14.6%). Estimates of agreement (i.e., kappa) for EMR and administrative data ranged from 0.47 for COPD to 0.58 for diabetes. Sensitivity of the EMR data was lowest for COPD (37.4%; 95% CI 36.0-38.8) and highest for diabetes (57.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 56.6-58.6). PPV estimates were lowest for osteoarthritis (66.9%; 95% CI 66.0-67.8) and highest for hypertension (78.3%; 95% CI 77.7-78.9). Specificity estimates were consistently above 90% and NPV estimates were always greater than 80%. Validity estimates for the EMR case definitions were associated with demographic and comorbidity characteristics of the study cohorts. ConclusionsValidity of EMR data, when compared to administrative health data, for ascertaining five different chronic diseases was fair to good; it varied with the disease under investigation. Further research is needed to identify methods for improving the accuracy of chronic disease case definitions in EMR 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 | 0.025 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".