MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111069839 · doi:10.1177/2054358120977390

Validation of the International Classification of Disease 10th Revision Codes for Kidney Transplant Rejection and Failure

2020· article· en· W3111069839 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Massicotte‐Azarniouch, Manish M. Sood, Dean Fergusson, Greg Knoll

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGold standard (test)Hazard ratioSingle CenterInternal medicineKidney transplantationDiagnosis codePopulationRetrospective cohort studyConfidence intervalTransplantationGeneralizability theoryKidney diseaseSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical research requires that diagnostic codes captured from routinely collected health administrative data accurately identify individuals with a disease. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we validated the International Classification of Disease 10th Revision (ICD-10) definition for kidney transplant rejection (T86.100) and for kidney transplant failure (T86.101). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A large, regional transplantation center in Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: All adult kidney transplant recipients from 2002 to 2018. MEASUREMENTS: Chart review was undertaken to identify the first occurrence of biopsy-confirmed rejection and graft loss for all participants. For each observation, we determined the first date a single ICD-10 code T86.100 or T86.101 was recorded as a hospital encounter discharge diagnosis. METHODS: Using chart review as the gold standard, we determined the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) for the ICD-10 codes T86.100 and T86.101. RESULTS: Our study population comprised of 1,258 kidney transplant recipients. The prevalence of rejection and death-censored graft loss were 15.6 and 9.1%, respectively. For the ICD-10 rejection code (T86.100), sensitivity was 72.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.6-79.2), specificity 97.5% (96.5-98.4), and PPV 83.8% (78.3-89.4). For the ICD-10 graft loss code (T86.101), sensitivity was 21.2% (95% CI, 13.2-29.3), specificity 86.3% (84.3-88.3), and PPV 11.7% (7.0-16.4). LIMITATIONS: Single-center study which may limit generalizability of our findings. CONCLUSIONS: A single ICD-10 code for kidney transplant rejection (T86.100) was present in 84% of true kidney transplant rejections and is an accurate way of identifying kidney transplant recipients with rejection using administrative health data. The ICD-10 code for graft failure (T86.101) performed poorly and should not be used for administrative health research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicMedical Coding and Health InformationFrench-language works237,207