Validation of the Combined Comorbidity Index of Charlson and Elixhauser to Predict 30-Day Mortality Across ICD-9 and ICD-10
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To validate and compare performance of an International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD-10) version of a combined comorbidity index merging conditions of Charlson and Elixhauser measures against individual measures in the prediction of 30-day mortality. To select a weight derivation method providing optimal performance across ICD-9 and ICD-10 coding systems. RESEARCH DESIGN: Using 2 adult population-based cohorts of patients with hospital admissions in ICD-9 (2005, n=337,367) and ICD-10 (2011, n=348,820), we validated a combined comorbidity index by predicting 30-day mortality with logistic regression. To appreciate performance of the Combined index and both individual measures, factors impacting indices performance such as population characteristics and weight derivation methods were accounted for. We applied 3 scoring methods (Van Walraven, Schneeweiss, and Charlson) and determined which provides best predictive values. RESULTS: Combined index [c-statistics: 0.853 (95% confidence interval: CI, 0.848-0.856)] performed better than original Charlson [0.841 (95% CI, 0.835-0.844)] or Elixhauser [0.841 (95% CI, 0.837-0.844)] measures on ICD-10 cohort. All weight derivation methods provided close high discrimination results for the Combined index (Van Walraven: 0.852, Schneeweiss: 0.851, Charlson: 0.849). Results were consistent across both coding systems. CONCLUSIONS: The Combined index remains valid with both ICD-9 and ICD-10 coding systems and the 3 weight derivation methods evaluated provided consistent high performance across those coding systems.
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 | 0.019 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".