Identifying cases of chronic pain using health administrative data: A validation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most prevalence estimates of chronic pain are derived from surveys and vary widely, both globally (2%-54%) and in Canada (6.5%-44%). Health administrative data are increasingly used for chronic disease surveillance, but their validity as a source to ascertain chronic pain cases is understudied. AIM: The aim of this study was to derive and validate an algorithm to identify cases of chronic pain as a single chronic disease using provincial health administrative data. METHODS: A reference standard was developed and applied to the electronic medical records data of a Newfoundland and Labrador general population sample participating in the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network. Chronic pain algorithms were created from the administrative data of patient populations with chronic pain, and their classification performance was compared to that of the reference standard via statistical tests of selection accuracy. RESULTS: The most performant algorithm for chronic pain case ascertainment from the Medical Care Plan Fee-for-Service Physicians Claims File was one anesthesiology encounter ever recording a chronic pain clinic procedure code OR five physician encounter dates recording any pain-related diagnostic code in 5 years with more than 183 days separating at least two encounters. The algorithm demonstrated 0.703 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.685-0.722) sensitivity, 0.668 (95% CI, 0.657-0.678) specificity, and 0.408 (95% CI, 0.393-0.423) positive predictive value. The chronic pain algorithm selected 37.6% of a Newfoundland and Labrador provincial cohort. CONCLUSIONS: A health administrative data algorithm was derived and validated to identify chronic pain cases and estimate disease burden in residents attending fee-for-service physician encounters in Newfoundland and Labrador.
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 | 0.040 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".