Performance of a Computational Phenotyping Algorithm for Sarcoidosis Using Diagnostic Codes in Electronic Medical Records: Case Validation Study From 2 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic medical records (EMRs) offer the promise of computationally identifying sarcoidosis cases. However, the accuracy of identifying these cases in the EMR is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine the statistical performance of using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnostic codes to identify patients with sarcoidosis in the EMR. METHODS: We used the ICD diagnostic codes to identify sarcoidosis cases by searching the EMRs of the San Francisco and Palo Alto Veterans Affairs medical centers and randomly selecting 200 patients. To improve the diagnostic accuracy of the computational algorithm in cases where histopathological data are unavailable, we developed an index of suspicion to identify cases with a high index of suspicion for sarcoidosis (confirmed and probable) based on clinical and radiographic features alone using the American Thoracic Society practice guideline. Through medical record review, we determined the positive predictive value (PPV) of diagnosing sarcoidosis by two computational methods: using ICD codes alone and using ICD codes plus the high index of suspicion. RESULTS: Among the 200 patients, 158 (79%) had a high index of suspicion for sarcoidosis. Of these 158 patients, 142 (89.9%) had documentation of nonnecrotizing granuloma, confirming biopsy-proven sarcoidosis. The PPV of using ICD codes alone was 79% (95% CI 78.6%-80.5%) for identifying sarcoidosis cases and 71% (95% CI 64.7%-77.3%) for identifying histopathologically confirmed sarcoidosis in the EMRs. The inclusion of the generated high index of suspicion to identify confirmed sarcoidosis cases increased the PPV significantly to 100% (95% CI 96.5%-100%). Histopathology documentation alone was 90% sensitive compared with high index of suspicion. CONCLUSIONS: ICD codes are reasonable classifiers for identifying sarcoidosis cases within EMRs with a PPV of 79%. Using a computational algorithm to capture index of suspicion data elements could significantly improve the case-identification accuracy.
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 | 0.014 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".