Evaluation of the International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) in the coding of common surgical procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) in the clinical and statistical use cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 300 most-performed surgical procedures as represented by their display names in an electronic health record. For comparison with existing coding systems, we coded the procedures in ICHI, SNOMED CT, International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10-PCS, and CCI (Canadian Classification of Health Interventions), using postcoordination (modification of existing codes by adding other codes), when applicable. Failure analysis was done for cases where full representation was not achieved. The ICHI encoding was further evaluated for adequacy to support statistical reporting by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and European Union (EU) categories of surgical procedures. RESULTS: After deduplication, 229 distinct procedures remained. Without postcoordination, ICHI achieved full representation in 52.8%. A further 19.2% could be fully represented with postcoordination. SNOMED CT was the best performing overall, with 94.3% full representation without postcoordination, and 99.6% with postcoordination. Failure analysis showed that "method" and "target" constituted most of the missing information for ICHI encoding. For all OECD/EU surgical categories, ICHI coding was adequate to support statistical reporting. One OECD/EU category ("Hip replacement, secondary") required postcoordination for correct assignment. CONCLUSION: In the clinical use case of capturing information in the electronic health record, ICHI was outperformed by the clinically oriented procedure coding systems (SNOMED CT and CCI), but was comparable to ICD-10-PCS. Postcoordination could be an effective and efficient means of improving coverage. ICHI is generally adequate for the collection of international statistics.
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 | 0.106 | 0.268 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".