Validation of algorithms to determine incidence of Hirschsprung disease in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study using health administrative data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Incidence rates of Hirschsprung disease (HD) vary by geographical region, yet no recent population-based estimate exists for Canada. The objective of our study was to validate and use health administrative data from Ontario, Canada to describe trends in incidence of HD between 1991 and 2013. Study design: To identify children with HD we tested algorithms consisting of a combination of diagnostic, procedural, and intervention codes against the reference standard of abstracted clinical charts from a tertiary pediatric hospital. The algorithm with the highest positive predictive value (PPV) that could maintain high sensitivity was applied to health administrative data from April 31, 1991 to March 31, 2014 (fiscal years 1991–2013) to determine annual incidence. Temporal trends were evaluated using Poisson regression, controlling for sex as a covariate. Results: The selected algorithm was highly sensitive (93.5%) and specific (>99.9%) with excellent predictive abilities (PPV 89.6% and negative predictive value >99.9%). Using the algorithm, a total of 679 patients diagnosed with HD were identified in Ontario between 1991 and 2013. The overall incidence during this time was 2.05 per 10,000 live births (or 1 in 4,868 live births). The incidence did not change significantly over time (odds ratio 0.998, 95% confidence interval 0.983–1.013, p = 0.80). Conclusion: Ontario health administrative data can be used to accurately identify cases of HD and describe trends in incidence. There has not been a significant change in HD incidence over time in Ontario between 1991 and 2013. Keywords: Hirschsprung disease, algorithm validation, incidence, health administrative 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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | high |
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 | 0.020 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".