<p>Identifying pediatric diabetes cases from health administrative data: a population-based validation study in Quebec, Canada</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 1 diabetes is one of the most common chronic diseases in childhood with a worldwide incidence that is increasing by 3-5% per year. The incidence of type 2 diabetes, traditionally viewed as an adult disease, is increasing at alarming rates in children, paralleling the rise in childhood obesity. As the rates of diabetes increase in children, accurate population-based assessment of disease burden is important for those implementing strategies for health services delivery. Health administrative data are a powerful tool that can be used to track disease burden, health services use, and health outcomes. Case validation is essential in ensuring accurate disease identification using administrative databases. AIM: The aim of our study was to define and validate a pediatric diabetes case ascertainment algorithm (including any form of childhood-onset diabetes) using health administrative data. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a two-stage method using linked health administrative data and data extracted from charts. In stage 1, we linked chart data from a large urban region to health administrative data and compared the diagnostic accuracy of various algorithms. We selected those that performed the best to be validated in stage 2. In stage 2, the most accurate algorithms were validated with chart data within two other geographic areas in the province of Quebec. RESULTS: Accurate identification of diabetes in children (ages ≤15 years) required four physician claims or one hospitalization (with International Classification of Disease codes within 1 year (sensitivity 91.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 89.2-92.9]; positive predictive value [PPV] 93.5%, 95% CI 91.7-95.0) or using only four physician claims in 2 years (sensitivity 90.4%, 95% CI 88.3-92.2; PPV 93.2%, 95% CI 91.7-95.0). Separating the physician claims by 30 days increased the PPV of all algorithms tested. CONCLUSION: Patients with child-onset diabetes can be accurately identified within health administrative databases providing a valid source of information for health care resource planning and evaluation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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".