MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097150301 · doi:10.1017/ice.2020.1188

Validation of Administrative Codes for Identification of <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> Infections Among Electronic Health Data

2020· article· en· W3097150301 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ashley N Rose, Runa H. Gokhale, Isaac See, James Baggs, Rachel B. Slayton, Scott K. Fridkin, Kelly M Hatfield

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection Control and Hospital Epidemiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversité de MontréalJewish General HospitalUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityPublic Health AgencyIWK Health CentreUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of WaterlooMcGill UniversityPublic Health Agency of CanadaMcGill University Health CentreNabriva TherapeuticsAlberta Health ServicesLondon Health Sciences Centre
KeywordsMedicineDiagnosis codeStaphylococcus aureusEpidemiologyInternal medicinePredictive valueEmergency medicinePediatricsPopulationEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Epidemiological studies have utilized administrative discharge diagnosis codes to identify methicillin-resistant and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA and MSSA) infections and trends, despite debate regarding the accuracy of utilizing codes for this purpose. We assessed the sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of MRSA- and MSSA-specific diagnosis codes, trends, characteristics, and outcomes of S. aureus hospitalizations by method of identification. Methods: Clinical micro biology results and discharge data from geographically diverse US hospitals participating in the Premier Healthcare Database from 2012–2017 were used to identify monthly rates of MRSA and MSSA. Positive MRSA or MSSA clinical cultures and/or a MRSA- or MSSA-specific International Classification of Diseases, Ninth/Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9/10 CM) diagnosis codes from adult inpatients (aged ≥18 years) were included as S. aureus hospitalizations. Septicemia was defined as a positive blood culture or a MRSA or MSSA septicemia code. Sensitivity and PPV for codes were calculated for hospitalizations where admission status was not listed as transfer; true infection was considered a positive clinical culture. Negative binominal regression models measured trends in rates of MRSA and MSSA per 1,000 hospital discharges. Results: We identified 168,634 MRSA and 148,776 MSSA hospitalizations in 256 hospitals; 17% of MRSA and 21% of MSSA were septicemia. Less than half of all S. aureus hospitalizations (49% MRSA, 46% MSSA) and S. aureus septicemia hospitalizations (37% MRSA, 38% MSSA) had both a positive culture and diagnosis code (Fig. 1). Sensitivity of MRSA codes in identifying positive cultures was 61% overall and 56% for septicemia, PPV was 62% overall and 53% for septicemia. MSSA codes had a sensitivity of 49% in identifying MSSA cultures and 52% for MSSA septicemia; PPV was 69% overall and 62% for septicemia. Despite low sensitivity, MRSA trends are similar for cultures and codes, and MSSA trends are divergent (Fig. 2). For hospitalizations with septicemia, mortality was highest among those with a blood culture only (31.3%) compared to hospitalizations with both a septicemia code and blood culture (16.6%), and septicemia code only (14.7%). Conclusions: ICD diagnosis code sensitivity and PPV for identifying infections were consistently poor in recent years. Less than half of hospitalizations have concordant microbiology laboratory results and diagnosis codes. Rates and trend estimates for MSSA differ by method of identification. Using diagnosis codes to identify S. aureus infections may not be appropriate for descriptive epidemiology or assessing trends due to significant misclassification. Funding: None Disclosures: Scott Fridkin reports that his spouse receives consulting fees from the vaccine industry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfection Control and Hospital EpidemiologySame topicAntimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusFrench-language works237,207