Validation of canadian health administrative data algorithms for estimating trends in the incidence and prevalence of osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To estimate the 1) accuracy of algorithms for identifying osteoarthritis (OA) using health administrative data; and 2) population-level OA prevalence and incidence over time in Ontario, Canada. Method: We performed a retrospective chart abstraction study to identify OA patients in a random sample of 7500 primary care patients from electronic medical records. The validation sample was linked with several administrative data sources. Accuracy of administrative data algorithms for identifying OA was tested against two reference standard definitions by estimating the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. The validated algorithms were then applied to the Ontario population to estimate and compare population-level prevalence and incidence from 2000 to 2017. Results: OA prevalence within the validation sample ranged from 10% to 23% across the two reference standards. Algorithms varied in accuracy depending on the reference standard, with the sensitivity highest (77%) for patients with OA documented in medical problem lists. Using the top performing administrative data algorithms, the crude population-level OA prevalence ranged from 11% to 25% and standardized prevalence ranged from 9 to 22% in 2017. Over time, prevalence increased whereas incidence remained stable (~1% annually). Conclusion: Health administrative data have limited sensitivity in adequately identifying all OA patients and appear to be more sensitive at detecting OA patients for whom their physician formally documented their diagnosis in medical problem lists than individuals who have their diagnosis documented outside of problem lists. Irrespective of the algorithm used, OA prevalence has increased over the past decade while annual incidence has been stable.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".