Development and validation of data quality rules in administrative health data using association rule mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data quality assessment presents a challenge for research using coded administrative health data. The objective of this study is to develop and validate a set of coding association rules for coded diagnostic data. METHODS: We used the Canadian re-abstracted hospital discharge abstract data coded in International Classification of Disease, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes. Association rule mining was conducted on the re-abstracted data in four age groups (0-4, 20-44, 45-64; ≥ 65) to extract ICD-10 coding association rules at the three-digit (category of diagnosis) and four-digit levels (category of diagnosis with etiology, anatomy, or severity). The rules were reviewed by a panel of 5 physicians and 2 classification specialists using a modified Delphi rating process. We proposed and defined the variance and bias to assess data quality using the rules. RESULTS: After the rule mining process and the panel review, 388 rules at the three-digit level and 275 rules at the four-digit level were developed. Half of the rules were from the age group of ≥65. Rules captured meaningful age-specific clinical associations, with rules at the age group of ≥65 being more complex and comprehensive than other age groups. The variance and bias can identify rules with high bias and variance in Alberta data and provides directions for quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: A set of ICD-10 data quality rules were developed and validated by a clinical and classification expert panel. The rules can be used as a tool to assess ICD-coded data, enabling the monitoring and comparison of data quality across institutions, provinces, and countries.
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 | 0.439 | 0.638 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".