Validation of a hierarchical algorithm to define chronic liver disease and cirrhosis etiology in administrative healthcare data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Chronic liver disease (CLD) and cirrhosis are leading causes of death globally with the burden of disease rising significantly over the past several decades. Defining the etiology of liver disease is important for understanding liver disease epidemiology, healthcare planning, and outcomes. The aim of this study was to validate a hierarchical algorithm for CLD and cirrhosis etiology in administrative healthcare data. METHODS: Consecutive patients with CLD or cirrhosis attending an outpatient hepatology clinic in Ontario, Canada from 05/01/2013-08/31/2013 underwent detailed chart abstraction. Gold standard liver disease etiology was determined by an attending hepatologist as hepatitis C (HCV), hepatitis B (HBV), alcohol-related, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/cryptogenic, autoimmune or hemochromatosis. Individual data was linked to routinely collected administrative healthcare data at ICES. Diagnostic accuracy of a hierarchical algorithm incorporating both laboratory and administrative codes to define etiology was evaluated by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), and kappa's agreement. RESULTS: 442 individuals underwent chart abstraction (median age 53 years, 53% cirrhosis, 45% HCV, 26% NAFLD, 10% alcohol-related). In patients with cirrhosis, the algorithm had adequate sensitivity/PPV (>75%) and excellent specificity/NPV (>90%) for all etiologies. In those without cirrhosis, the algorithm was excellent for all etiologies except for hemochromatosis and autoimmune diseases. CONCLUSIONS: A hierarchical algorithm incorporating laboratory and administrative coding can accurately define cirrhosis etiology in routinely collected healthcare data. These results should facilitate health services research in this growing patient population.
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 | 0.050 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".