MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892259303 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i4.700

Validation of mechanical ventilation coding in hospital discharge abstracts: a population data linkage study

2018· article· en· W2892259303 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yao Nie, Kendiss Olafson, Jitender Sareen, Marina Yogendran

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationEmergency medicineHospital dischargeIntensive care unitPopulationVentilation (architecture)Psychological interventionHealth careGold standard (test)Intensive care medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionMechanical ventilation (MV) is an important intervention used in critically ill patients. Accurately identifying MV use in Hospital Discharge Abstracts will be extremely useful in population-based research. Although Canadian Institute for Health Information collects information on MV for all hospitalization, its validity in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is unknown. Objectives and ApproachWe validated MV use within ICU patients in Hospital Discharge Abstracts. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (WRHA) ICU database prospectively collects use of MV by trained nurses. All patients admitted to a WRHA ICU (82 beds) between April 1, 2000 and March 31, 2012 were identified in Hospital Discharge Abstracts. MV was identified in Hospital Discharge Abstracts through International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9-CM), prior to 2004, while Canadian Classification of Health Interventions (CCI) were used 2004 onwards. Agreement between the WRHA database (gold standard) and Hospital Discharge Abstracts for invasive ventilation, non-invasive ventilation or neither was calculated at ICU encounter level. ResultsThere were 54,680 WRHA ICU admission during the study period. The linking of these two sources was highly successful with accurate identification exceeding 99%. There were 26,083 mechanical ventilations (25,387 invasive; 696 non-invasive) from the Hospital Discharge Abstracts and 30,455 (28,315 invasive; 4,554 non-invasive) from the CIC data. Hospital Discharge Abstracts had a sensitivity of 82.8%, specificity of 96.4%, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of 96.7%, and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of 81.7% for identifying mechanical ventilation. For invasive ventilation, Sensitivity was 85.5%, Specificity was 95.6%, PPV was 95.4% and NPV was 86.0%. Validation of non-invasive ventilation was poor in sensitivity (9.38%) and PPV (61.35%): with specificity 99.5% and NPV 92.36%. Conclusion/ImplicationsHospital Abstracts data are a good source to identity mechanically ventilated patients for ICU containing hospital stays especially invasive mechanical ventilations. Future research needs to explore the poor agreement with non-invasive mechanical ventilation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.086
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.153
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0860.153
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207