Identification of prosthetic hip and knee joint infections using administrative databases—A validation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether combinations of diagnosis and procedures codes can improve the detection of prosthetic hip and knee joint infections from administrative databases. DESIGN: We performed a validation study of all readmissions from January 1, 2010, until December 31, 2016, following primary arthroplasty comparing the diagnosis and procedure codes obtained from an administrative database based upon the International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) to the reference standard of chart review. SETTING: Four tertiary-care hospitals in Toronto, Canada, from 2010 to 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals who had a primary arthroplasty were identified using procedure codes. INTERVENTION: Chart review of readmissions identified the presence of a prosthetic joint infection and, if present, the surgical procedure performed. RESULTS: Overall, 27,802 primary arthroplasties were performed. Among 8,844 readmissions over a median follow-up of 669 days (interquartile range, 256-1,249 days), a PJI was responsible for or present in 586 of 8,844 (6.6%). Diagnosis codes alone exhibited a sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92) and positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.82) for detecting a PJI. Combining a PJI diagnosis code with procedure codes for an arthroplasty and the insertion of a peripherally inserted central catheter improved detection: sensitivity was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88-0.94) and PPV was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.82). However, procedure codes were unable to identify the specific surgical approach to PJI treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to PJI diagnosis codes, combinations of diagnosis and procedure codes improve the detection of a PJI in administrative databases.
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 | 0.021 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".