Detecting Miscoded Diabetes Diagnosis Codes in Electronic Health Records for Quality Improvement: Temporal Deep Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes affects more than 30 million patients across the United States. With such a large disease burden, even a small error in classification can be significant. Currently billing codes, assigned at the time of a medical encounter, are the "gold standard" reflecting the actual diseases present in an individual, and thus in aggregate reflect disease prevalence in the population. These codes are generated by highly trained coders and by health care providers but are not always accurate. OBJECTIVE: This work provides a scalable deep learning methodology to more accurately classify individuals with diabetes across multiple health care systems. METHODS: We leveraged a long short-term memory-dense neural network (LSTM-DNN) model to identify patients with or without diabetes using data from 5 acute care facilities with 187,187 patients and 275,407 encounters, incorporating data elements including laboratory test results, diagnostic/procedure codes, medications, demographic data, and admission information. Furthermore, a blinded physician panel reviewed discordant cases, providing an estimate of the total impact on the population. RESULTS: When predicting the documented diagnosis of diabetes, our model achieved an 84% F1 score, 96% area under the curve-receiver operating characteristic curve, and 91% average precision on a heterogeneous data set from 5 distinct health facilities. However, in 81% of cases where the model disagreed with the documented phenotype, a blinded physician panel agreed with the model. Taken together, this suggests that 4.3% of our studied population have either missing or improper diabetes diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that deep learning methods can improve clinical phenotyping even when patient data are noisy, sparse, and heterogeneous.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".