Identification of validated case definitions for medical conditions used in primary care electronic medical record databases: a systematic review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Data derived from primary care electronic medical records (EMRs) are being used for research and surveillance. Case definitions are required to identify patients with specific conditions in EMR data with a degree of accuracy. The purpose of this study is to identify and provide a summary of case definitions that have been validated in primary care EMR data. Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase (from inception to June 2016) to identify studies that describe case definitions for clinical conditions in EMR data and report on the performance metrics of these definitions. Results: We identified 40 studies reporting on case definitions for 47 unique clinical conditions. The studies used combinations of International Classification of Disease version 9 (ICD-9) codes, Read codes, laboratory values, and medications in their algorithms. The most common validation metric reported was positive predictive value, with inconsistent reporting of sensitivity and specificity. Discussion: This review describes validated case definitions derived in primary care EMR data, which can be used to understand disease patterns and prevalence among primary care populations. Limitations include incomplete reporting of performance metrics and uncertainty regarding performance of case definitions across different EMR databases and countries. Conclusion: Our review found a significant number of validated case definitions with good performance for use in primary care EMR data. These could be applied to other EMR databases in similar contexts and may enable better disease surveillance when using clinical EMR data. Consistent reporting across validation studies using EMR data would facilitate comparison across studies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42016040020 (submitted June 8, 2016, and last revised June 14, 2016).
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 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 | 0.028 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 it