MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998224910 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031964

Validation study of randomly selected cases of PTSD diagnoses identified in a Swedish regional database compared with medical records: is the validity sufficient for epidemiological research?

2019· article· en· W2998224910 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anna‐Clara Hollander, Klara Askegård, Claudia Iddon-Escalante, Emily A. Holmes, Susanne Wicks, Christina Dalman

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVetenskapsrådetLupina FoundationForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdOak Foundation
KeywordsMedical diagnosisMedicineFalse positive paradoxPsychiatryEpidemiologyCriterion validityMedical recordClinical psychologyConstruct validityPsychometricsPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives In Sweden, the patients’ diagnoses are recorded in administrative registers. The research value of these registers is determined by their diagnostic validity, that is, if the diagnosis recorded meets the relevant diagnostic criteria. The aim of the study was to assess the validity of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-diagnoses as compared with case notes in medical records (MRs) and to test if there was a difference in validity by gender, migration status and those with and without psychotic symptoms. We hypothesised that the validity would be sufficient, using both Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-IV and DSM-5 but higher according to DSM-IV than DSM-5, and that the validity would be the same for men and women, but different for Swedish-born and migrants, and for those with and without psychotic symptoms. Design and setting A validation of the register-diagnoses using MRs from treatment centres within the Region of Stockholm to examine whether patients with a register-diagnosis of PTSD fulfilled DSM criteria of PTSD according to the case notes in their MRs. Participants A random sample of 187 patients aged 18–64, who had been diagnosed with PTSD (F43.1 in the ICD-10) were drawn from the Region of Stockholm’s MR database 2013–2015. Primary outcome measure Validity of the PTSD diagnoses according to DSM-IV and DSM-5 as proportions of true positives with 95% CI. Results The hypothesised sufficient validity of the PTSD diagnoses was confirmed. Although the point-estimates for DSM-IV were higher than for DSM-5, the hypothesis that there would be significant differences in validity between DSM-IV and DSM-5 was not confirmed. There were no significant validity differences by gender, migration status and for those with and without psychotic symptoms. Conclusions This study has found that validity of the PTSD diagnoses in the register of the Region of Stockholm to be sufficient for epidemiological research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.627
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.041 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207