Validating health conditions in a clinical registry using administrative data algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionClinical registries are a potentially valuable resource to study the effects of medical interventions on outcomes, particularly patient-reported outcomes like health-related quality of life, which are not included in administrative data. However, because clinical registries are primarily intended for patient management and not for research, their validity must be established. Objectives and ApproachOur objective was to validate patient self-reported health conditions in a clinical registry. Study data were from a population-based regional joint replacement registry in the Canadian province of Manitoba. The clinical registry data were linked to administrative health data. Validated administrative data algorithms for 12 conditions were defined using diagnosis codes in hospital and physician records and medication codes in prescription drug records for the period up to three years prior to the joint replacement surgery. Accuracy of the clinical registry data was estimated using Cohen’s kappa coefficient, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV; NPV); 95% confidence intervals were also estimated. Analyses were stratified by joint type, age group, and sex. ResultsThe study cohort included 20,592 individuals (average age 66.3 years; 58.4% female); 8,424 (40.9%) had a total hip replacement. Sensitivity of the clinical registry data ranged from 16% (anemia) to more than 70% (diabetes, high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis); specificity was greater than 92% for all conditions, except back pain and high blood pressure. PPV ranged from 19% (back pain) to 83% (diabetes). Chance-adjusted agreement was very good for diabetes (kappa: 0.74), moderate for heart disease and high blood pressure (kappa range: 0.41-0.53) and poor or fair for back pain, anemia, cancer, depression, kidney disease, liver disease, rheumatoid arthritis and stomach ulcers (kappa range: 0.14-0.37). Estimates varied by sex (i.e., generally higher agreement for females) and age (i.e., generally lower agreement for older age groups), but not joint type. Conclusion/ImplicationsSelf-reported health conditions in registry data had good validity for conditions with clear diagnostic criteria, but low validity for conditions that are difficult to diagnose or rare (e.g., cancer). Linked registry and administrative data is strongly recommended to ensure valid and accurate comorbidity measures when developiong risk prediction models and conducting inter-jurisdictional comparisons of patient-reported outcome measures.
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 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 | 0.115 | 0.277 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".