Identification of incident pancreatic cancer in Ontario administrative health data: A validation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To validate three approaches for identifying incident cases of pancreatic cancer in Ontario administrative claims data. METHODS: We created a cohort using Ontario (Canada) administrative health data from 2002 to 2012 and identified cases of pancreatic cancer with three approaches, using the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) as the reference standard. In the any diagnosis approach, cases were defined by primary or secondary diagnostic codes for pancreatic cancer in outpatient or inpatient records. In the any inpatient diagnosis approach, cases were defined using only diagnoses in hospital discharge abstracts. In the algorithm approach, cases were identified by an algorithm that combined the first two approaches. Comparing each approach to the OCR, we calculated the expected value and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). We also compared the event dates using each approach with those recorded in the OCR. RESULTS: Among a total of 12 060 837 patients in Ontario administrative health data sources, 13 999 incident pancreatic cancer cases were identified in the OCR. Sensitivity ranged from 72.5% (algorithm) to 97.5% (any diagnosis), and PPV ranged from 38.4% (any diagnosis) to 78.9% (any inpatient diagnosis). Specificity and NPV were ~100% for all approaches. The median absolute difference in cancer event date ranged 0 to 15 days. The any inpatient diagnosis method had the highest PPV (78.9%; 95% CI: 78.2-79.5%) and moderate sensitivity (86.6%; 95% CI: 86.0-87.2%). CONCLUSION: Inpatient diagnoses of pancreatic cancer in Ontario administrative heath data are suitable for pancreatic cancer case identification.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".