MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087642702 · doi:10.1111/aogs.13994

Accuracy of postpartum hemorrhage coding in the Swedish Pregnancy Register

2020· article· en· W3087642702 on OpenAlexaff
Linnea V. Ladfors, Giulia M. Muraca, Alexander J. Butwick, Gustaf Edgren, Olof Stephansson

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersVetenskapsrådetKarolinska Institutet
KeywordsMedicineDiagnosis codeObstetricsPredictive valueRetrospective cohort studyPregnancyPopulationBlood transfusionConfidence intervalPredictive value of testsCohortCohort studyGynecologyPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is recognized as a leading cause of obstetric morbidity and mortality. Population-wide studies have used International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnostic codes to track and report the prevalence of PPH. Although the 10th revision (ICD-10) was introduced in Sweden in 1997, the accuracy of ICD-10 codes for PPH is not known. Thus, the aim was to determine the accuracy of diagnostic coding for PPH in the Swedish Pregnancy Register. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 609 807 deliveries in Sweden between 2014 and 2019. Information on ICD-10 codes for PPH and estimated blood loss were extracted from the Swedish Pregnancy Register. Using an estimated blood loss >1000 mL as the reference standard, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of ICD-10 codes for PPH by estimating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value with exact binomial 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In our secondary analysis, we assessed the ICD-10 coding accuracy for severe PPH, defined as an estimated blood loss >1000 mL and transfusion of at least 1 unit of red blood cells registered in the Scandinavian Donations and Transfusion database. RESULTS: Of the 609 807 deliveries, 43 312 (7.1%) had an ICD-10 code for PPH and 45 071 (7.4%) had an estimated blood loss >1000 mL. The ICD codes had a sensitivity of 88.5% (95% CI 88.2-88.7), specificity of 99.4% (95% CI 99.4-99.4), positive predictive value of 92.0% (95% CI 91.8-92.3) and negative predictive value of 99.1% (95% CI 99.1-99.1). In our secondary analysis, on deliveries with severe PPH, the sensitivity for an ICD code was 91.3% (95% CI 90.7-91.9), whereas specificity was 83.5% (95% CI 82.3-84.6). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that ICD-10 codes for PPH in Sweden have moderately high sensitivity and excellent specificity. These results suggest that PPH diagnostic codes in medical records and linked pregnancy and birth registers can be used for research, quality improvement and reporting PPH prevalence in Sweden.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
DomainReporting
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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica ScandinavicaSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207