Identification of Axial Spondyloarthritis Patients in a Large Dataset: The Development and Validation of Novel Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Observational axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) research in large datasets has been limited by a lack of adequate methods for identifying patients with axSpA, because there are no billing codes in the United States for most subtypes of axSpA. The objective of this study was to develop methods to accurately identify patients with axSpA in a large dataset. METHODS: The study population included 600 chart-reviewed veterans, with and without axSpA, in the Veterans Health Administration between January 1, 2005, and June 30, 2015. AxSpA identification algorithms were developed with variables anticipated by clinical experts to be predictive of an axSpA diagnosis [demographics, billing codes, healthcare use, medications, laboratory results, and natural language processing (NLP) for key SpA features]. Random Forest and 5-fold cross validation were used for algorithm development and testing in the training subset (n = 451). The algorithms were additionally tested in an independent testing subset (n = 149). RESULTS: Three algorithms were developed: Full algorithm, High Feasibility algorithm, and Spond NLP algorithm. In the testing subset, the areas under the curve with the receiver-operating characteristic analysis were 0.96, 0.94, and 0.86, for the Full algorithm, High Feasibility algorithm, and Spond NLP algorithm, respectively. Algorithm sensitivities ranged from 85.0% to 95.0%, specificities from 78.0% to 93.6%, and accuracies from 82.6% to 91.3%. CONCLUSION: Novel axSpA identification algorithms performed well in classifying patients with axSpA. These algorithms offer a range of performance and feasibility attributes that may be appropriate for a broad array of axSpA studies. Additional research is required to validate the algorithms in other cohorts.
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 | 0.041 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".