Unexpected discrepancies in hospital administrative databases can impact the accuracy of monitoring thyroid surgery outcomes in France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of hospital administrative databases compared to prospective collection of medical data assessing thyroid surgery complications. BACKGROUND: Administrative data are increasingly used to track surgical outcomes. METHODS: All patients undergoing thyroid surgery at three French university hospitals between April 2008 and April 2009 were prospectively included. Using diagnosis and procedural codes from hospital administrative database, we designed three indicators for measuring complications of thyroid surgery: recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, postoperative hypoparathyroidism, and postoperative hemorrhage. Gold standard was obtained from a prospective collection of medical data after systematically screening each patient for the above-mentioned complications. Their ability to monitor surgical outcomes over time within individual hospitals was estimated using control charts. Spatial comparison between hospitals was performed by funnel plots. RESULTS: A total of 1909 patients were included. Complication rates extracted from administrative data were significantly lower compared to medical data (nerve palsy 2.4% vs. 6.7%, hypoparathyroidism 10.6% vs. 22.3%, p<0.0001). Indicator sensitivity was 30.4% for nerve palsy, 45.4% for hypoparathyroidism and 71.4% for postoperative hemorrhage. Corresponding positive predictive values were 84.4%, 95.1% and 68.2%. In two of the three hospitals, administrative data were not able to track temporal variations in complications rates. Regarding inter-hospital comparisons, 2 out of 3 hospitals were considered outliers according to administrative data despite having an average performance based on medical data. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of indicators extracted from administrative databases to measure thyroid surgery outcomes depends on the quality of underlying data coding. Validation in every center should be a prerequisite before implementing such metrics for tracking performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".