MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811987522 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i1.448

Identifying Cases of Sleep Disorders through International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Codes in Administrative Data

2018· article· en· W2811987522 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarcolepsyDiagnosis codeMedicineInsomniaSleep disorderCohortObstructive sleep apneaPopulationPsychiatryMedical recordPediatricsInternal medicineNeurology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Prevalence, and associated morbidity and mortality of chronic sleep disorders have been limited to small cohort studies, however, administrative data may be used to provide representation of larger population estimates of disease. With no guidelines to inform the identification of cases of sleep disorders in administrative data, the objective of this study was to develop and validate a set of ICD-codes used to define sleep disorders including narcolepsy, insomnia, and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in administrative data. METHODS: A cohort of adult patients, with medical records reviewed by two independent board-certified sleep physicians from a sleep clinic in Calgary, Alberta between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011, was used as the reference standard. We developed a general ICD-coded case definition for sleep disorders which included conditions of narcolepsy, insomnia, and OSA using: 1) physician claims data, 2) inpatient visit data, 3) emergency department (ED) and ambulatory care data. We linked the reference standard data and administrative data to examine the validity of different case definitions, calculating estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: From a total of 1186 patients from the sleep clinic, 1045 (88.1%) were classified as sleep disorder positive, with 606 (51.1%) diagnosed with OSA, 407 (34.4%) with insomnia, and 59 (5.0%) with narcolepsy. The most frequently used ICD-9 codes were general codes of 307.4 (Nonorganic sleep disorder, unspecified), 780.5 (unspecified sleep disturbance) and ICD-10 codes of G47.8 (other sleep disorders), G47.9 (sleep disorder, unspecified). The best definition for identifying a sleep disorder was an ICD code (from physician claims) 2 years prior and 1 year post sleep clinic visit: sensitivity 79.2%, specificity 28.4%, PPV 89.1%, and NPV 15.6%. ICD codes from ED/ambulatory care data provided similar diagnostic performance when at least 2 codes appeared in a time period of 2 years prior and 1 year post sleep clinic visit: sensitivity 71.9%, specificity 54.6%, PPV 92.1%, and NPV 20.8%. The inpatient data yielded poor results in all tested ICD code combinations. CONCLUSION: Sleep disorders in administrative data can be identified mainly through physician claims data and with some being determined through outpatient/ambulatory care data ICD codes, however these are poorly coded within inpatient data sources. This may be a function of how sleep disorders are diagnosed and/or reported by physicians in inpatient and outpatient settings within medical records. Future work to optimize administrative data case definitions through data linkage are needed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it