Health surveillance for acute myocardial infarction in Canada: a comparison of administrative and laboratory data case definitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Health surveillance for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) requires a valid methodology to detect AMI cases in order to accurately measure AMI morbidity and mortality trends. OBJECTIVE:To determine the validity of the ICD coding for AMI in adults discharged from Calgary hospitals against a reference standard of those individuals with positive cardiac troponin T results from the laboratory database during the same time period. METHODS:A methodological comparison of AMI definitions were used to assess and validate ICD coding.Chart review was conducted to determine recurring explanations of discordant cases.Incidence rates by definition and period were calculated. RESULTS:Sensitivity decreased across the periods (52.8% to 48.5%:p=ns).Incidence rates were not statistically different across the periods but varied significantly within periods depending on the surveillance definition used (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION:This methodological comparison of approaches to identifying individuals with AMI found validity to be sub-optimal.vi
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".