Mapping Three Versions of the International Classification of Diseases to Categories of Chronic Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Administrative health data capture diagnoses using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), which has multiple versions over time. To facilitate longitudinal investigations using these data, we aimed to map diagnoses identified in three ICD versions - ICD-8 with adaptations (ICDA-8), ICD-9 with clinical modifications (ICD-9-CM), and ICD-10 with Canadian adaptations (ICD-10-CA) - to mutually exclusive chronic health condition categories adapted from the open source Clinical Classifications Software (CCS). METHODS: We adapted the CCS crosswalk to 3-digit ICD-9-CM codes for chronic conditions and resolved the one-to-many mappings in ICD-9-CM codes. Using this adapted CCS crosswalk as the reference and referring to existing crosswalks between ICD versions, we extended the mapping to ICDA-8 and ICD-10-CA. Each mapping step was conducted independently by two reviewers and discrepancies were resolved by consensus through deliberation and reference to prior research. We report the frequencies, agreement percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from each step. RESULTS: We identified 354 3-digit ICD-9-CM codes for chronic conditions. Of those, 77 (22%) codes had one-to-many mappings; 36 (10%) codes were mapped to a single CCS category and 41 (12%) codes were mapped to combined CCS categories. In total, the codes were mapped to 130 adapted CCS categories with an agreement percentage of 92% (95% CI: 86%-98%). Then, 321 3-digit ICDA-8 codes were mapped to CCS categories with an agreement percentage of 92% (95% CI: 89%-95%). Finally, 3583 ICD-10-CA codes were mapped to CCS categories; 111 (3%) had a fair or poor mapping quality; these were reviewed to keep or move to another category (agreement percentage = 77% [95% CI: 69%-85%]). CONCLUSIONS: We developed crosswalks for three ICD versions (ICDA-8, ICD-9-CM, and ICD-10-CA) to 130 clinically meaningful categories of chronic health conditions by adapting the CCS classification. These crosswalks will benefit chronic disease studies spanning multiple decades of administrative health data.
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 | 0.015 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".