Diagnostic accuracy of administrative codes for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease in clinic patients with cystic kidney disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability to identify patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) and distinguish them from patients with similar conditions in healthcare administrative databases is uncertain. We aimed to measure the sensitivity and specificity of different ADPKD administrative coding algorithms in a clinic population with non-ADPKD and ADPKD kidney cystic disease. METHODS: We used a dataset of all patients who attended a hereditary kidney disease clinic in Toronto, Ontario, Canada between 1 January 2010 and 23 December 2014. This dataset included patients who met our reference standard definition of ADPKD or other cystic kidney disease. We linked this dataset to healthcare databases in Ontario. We developed eight algorithms to identify ADPKD using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes and provincial diagnostic billing codes. A patient was considered algorithm positive if any one of the codes in the algorithm appeared at least once between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2015. RESULTS: The ICD-10 coding algorithm had a sensitivity of 33.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 30.0-37.7] and a specificity of 86.2% (95% CI 75.7-92.5) for the identification of ADPKD. The provincial diagnostic billing code had a sensitivity of 91.1% (95% CI 88.5-93.1) and a specificity of 10.8% (95% CI 5.3-20.6). CONCLUSIONS: ICD-10 coding may be useful to identify patients with a high chance of having ADPKD but fail to identify many patients with ADPKD. Provincial diagnosis billing codes identified most patients with ADPKD and also with other types of cystic kidney disease.
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 | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".