MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008296294 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.252

A253 ADMINISTRATIVE DATA CAN ACCURATELY IDENTIFY PATIENTS WITH PERIANAL CROHN’S DISEASE

2020· article· en· W3008296294 on OpenAlexaffabout
J.A. Fairclough, Terence Tang, Michael Fung Kee Fung, S. Golden, Atif Kukaswadia, Sarah Powers, R Parker Ward, Jeffrey D. McCurdy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortDiagnosis codeGold standard (test)PopulationRetrospective cohort studyCohort studySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Perianal fistulas (PAF) are a frequent complication of Crohn’s disease (CD) associated with substantial morbidity. Population-based studies with CD are lacking, in part due to the difficulty in identifying these patients from health administrative databases. Aims To determine if administrative claims and diagnostic codes can reliably identify patients with perianal fistulas in a cohort of patients with CD. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from The Ottawa Hospital (TOH), which was linked to The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) Ontario Crohn’s and Colitis Cohort (OCCC) data using Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) numbers. Patients admitted with CD from 1 Jan 2009 to 31 Dec 2016 were identified from TOH data warehouse using the ICD-10 code K50.x. Confirmation of CD diagnosis and determination of the presence or absence of PAF was achieved by a longitudinal, manual chart review. Patients with and without PAF were abstracted in a 1:2 ratio to serve as a reference gold standard for PAF status. ICES captures all publicly reimbursed diagnostic tests, interventional procedures and physician billing codes, including MRI pelvis utilization and surgical procedures associated with perianal fistulas in Ontario. Sixteen case definitions for PAF in ICES were specified a priori. Two by two contingency tables were constructed to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predicative value (NPV) of each case definition against the gold standard PAF status as determined by TOH data. Youden’s index and Kappa were used to select a case definition that best identified TOH PAF patients. Results: A total of 136 patients with active PAF and 351 without PAF were included in the linked analysis. There were a similar proportion of male patients with and without PAF (49% vs. 43%). Patients with PAF were slightly younger; 69% were aged 18–44 compared to 58% of patients without PAF. Sensitivity of the case definitions ranged from 0.44 to 0.98, and specificity from 0.45 to 1.00. A case definition that combined at least two of fistula diagnosis code, perianal surgical procedures associated with fistulas, and radiologic imaging codes of the pelvis, all within 2 years, had the best performance using Youden’s index and Kappa. It discriminated between patients with or without PAF with sensitivity of 0.80 and specificity of 0.92. Conclusions Using a cohort of CD patients from a single tertiary care center we derived a case definition that could accurately distinguish CD patients with and without PAF in a provincial health administrative database. Once validated this will allow for future population-based studies to assess trends in PAF. Funding Agencies Takeda Pharmaceuticals

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicAnorectal Disease Treatments and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207