Accuracy of Administrative Health Data for Surveillance of Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury surveillance provides information for allocating resources to prevention efforts. Administrative data are widely available and inexpensive but may underestimate traumatic brain injury burden by misclassifying cases. Moreover, previous studies evaluating the accuracy of administrative data surveillance case definitions were at risk of bias by using imperfect diagnostic definitions as reference standards. We assessed the accuracy (sensitivity/specificity) of traumatic brain injury surveillance case definitions in administrative data, without using a reference standard, to estimate incidence accurately. METHODS: We used administrative data from a 25% random sample of Montreal residents from 2000 to 2014. We used hierarchical Bayesian latent class models to estimate the accuracy of widely used traumatic brain injury case definitions based on the International Classification of Diseases, or on head radiologic examinations, covering the full injury spectrum in children, adults, and the elderly. We estimated measurement error-adjusted age- and severity-specific incidence. RESULTS: The adjusted traumatic brain injury incidence was 76 (95% CrI = 68, 85) per 10,000 person-years (underestimated as 54 [95% CrI = 54, 55] per 10,000 without adjustment). The most sensitive case definitions were radiologic examination claims in adults/elderly (0.48; 95% CrI = 0.43, 0.55 and 0.66; 95% CrI = 0.54, 0.79) and emergency department claims in children (0.45; 95% CrI = 0.39, 0.52). The most specific case definitions were inpatient claims and discharge abstracts (0.99; 95% CrI = 0.99, 1.00). We noted strong secular trends in case definition accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative data remain a useful tool for conducting traumatic brain injury surveillance and epidemiologic research when measurement error is adjusted for.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".