MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206929770 · doi:10.1002/pul2.12040

Using health administrative data to identify patients with pulmonary hypertension: A single center, proof of concept validation study in Ontario, Canada

2022· article· en· W4206929770 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

VenuePulmonary Circulation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineProof of conceptPulmonary hypertensionCenter (category theory)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Real‐world identification of pulmonary hypertension (PH) is largely based on the use of administrative databases identified by ICD codes. This approach has not been validated. The aim of this study was to validate a diagnosis of PH and its comorbidities using ICD 9/10 codes. Health records from Kingston Health Sciences Centre (2010 to 2012) were abstracted to identify a diagnosis of PH. Cohort 1 patients ( n = 300) were selected because they had attended a cardiology or respirology clinic without knowledge of PH status. Cohort 2 patients ( n = 200) were patients with a diagnosis of PH, identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes at the time of hospitalizations (CIHI‐DAD) or emergency department (ED) visits (CIHI‐NACRS). These cohorts were combined and reviewed to validate the diagnosis of PH. These data were securely transferred to the Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES). The diagnosis of PH from chart abstraction was used as the gold standard. The classification of PH into WHO groups, based on chart abstraction, was also compared to classification based on ICD code‐defined comorbidities. Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 were merged to yield 449 unique patients in the combined cohort. In the combined cohort, 248 of 449 (55.2%) had a diagnosis of PH by ICD code criteria. The mean age of this PH group was 70 years, and the majority were females (65.5%). One hospitalization or ED visit resulting in a diagnostic code for PH had a sensitivity of 73% and a specificity of 99% for a confirmed PH diagnosis on chart abstraction. When WHO classification by chart abstraction and ICD codes for comorbidities were compared, there was 87% agreement. Identification of PH and its comorbidities using ICD codes is a valid approach, and this single‐center study supports its application to identify PH.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.177 · 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