MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156103863 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v6i1.1406

Mapping Three Versions of the International Classification of Diseases to Categories of Chronic Conditions

2021· article· en· W3156103863 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyUniversity of Manitoba
FundersWinnipeg Foundation
KeywordsSchema crosswalkICD-10Diagnosis codeMedical diagnosisComputer scienceMedicineData miningGeographyPopulationPathologyPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.374
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.153 · 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