Data Linkage and Data Quality Assessment for Congenital Anomalies Surveillance in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionBORN Ontario is collaborating with the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) to enhance the surveillance of congenital anomalies (CA) in Ontario and participate in the national CA Surveillance Enhancement Initiative. Since 2013, BORN has provided Ontario CA cases and the birth population data to the PHAC annually.
 Objectives and ApproachThe objectives include a description of CA data linkage methodology and a data quality assessment. Suspected and confirmed fetal anomalies were ascertained from regional sites entering data in the BORN Information System’s (BIS) Antenatal Specialty (AS) and the Prenatal Screening Follow-up (PSFU) encounters. Newborn anomalies are identified from aggregate infant data ascertained from the Birth Child, Postpartum Child and Neonatal Care encounters. Both fetal and newborn anomalies are collected in the BIS using an extensive pick list, allowing for precise and accurate ascertainment. Once entered, pick list values are converted to ICD-10-CA codes or ranges using a lookup table.
 ResultsA few pick list values for minor congenital anomalies are not mapped to ICD-10-CA codes in the BIS. In this year’s cohort (CY 2016), 13 pick list values did not map to ICD-10-CA codes. This impacted 127 of 5,346 records (2.4%, one infant may have multiple records). In these cases, the CA chosen from the pick list did not have a corresponding ICD-10-CA code. Among 447 PSFU fetal anomaly records for singletons (one fetus may have multiple records), 16 records did not have a corresponding ICD-10 code. Of the AS fetal anomaly records for singletons, 109 of 3,302 records (3.3%, one fetus may have multiple records) had fetal anomalies identified in the pick list that did not have a corresponding ICD-10-CA code.
 Conclusion/ImplicationsBORN’s CA pick list values were developed and enhanced by clinical experts. There is a discrepancy between clinical diagnosis and the ICD-10-CA classification for certain sub-types of CA posing a challenge for mapping. To enhance data quality, BORN will continue to improve matching of pick list values with ICD-10-CA classification.
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 | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".