Identifying cases of spinal cord injury or disease in a primary care electronic medical record database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify cases of spinal cord injury or disease (SCI/D) in an Ontario database of primary care electronic medical records (EMR). DESIGN: A reference standard of cases of chronic SCI/D was established via manual review of EMRs; this reference standard was used to evaluate potential case identification algorithms for use in the same database. SETTING: Electronic Medical Records Primary Care (EMRPC) Database, Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 48,000 adult patients was randomly selected from 213,887 eligible patients in the EMRPC database. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Candidate algorithms were evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and F-score. RESULTS: 126 cases of chronic SCI/D were identified, forming the reference standard. Of these, 57 were cases of traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI), and 67 were cases of non-traumatic spinal cord injury (NTSCI). The optimal case identification algorithm used free-text keyword searches and a physician billing code, and had 70.6% sensitivity (61.9-78.4), 98.5% specificity (97.3-99.3), 89.9% PPV (82.2-95.0), 94.7% NPV (92.8-96.3), and an F-score of 79.1. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying cases of chronic SCI/D from a database of primary care EMRs using free-text entries is feasible, relying on a comprehensive case definition. Identifying a cohort of patients with SCI/D will allow for future study of the epidemiology and health service utilization of these patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".