Assessing the Accuracy of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Coding for Delirium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We assessed the accuracy of the ICD-10 code for delirium (F05) and its relationship with delirium discharge summary documentation. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review at three academic hospitals. The Chart-based Delirium Identification Instrument (CHART-DEL) was used to identify 108 hospitalized patients aged ≥65 years with delirium, and 758 patients without delirium as controls. We assessed the proportion of patients who received the F05 code and calculated the sensitivity and specificity. We compared the rates of F05 code received between patients with and without “delirium” documented in the discharge summary. Results: Among delirious patients, 46.3% received a F05 code, which has a sensitivity of 46.3% and specificity of 99.6% for delirium. Of charts with “delirium” in the discharge summary ( n = 67), 67.2% were appropriately coded. Conclusions: Current ICD-10 data inadequately capture delirium. Delirium documentation in the discharge summary is associated with improved delirium coding.
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 | 0.010 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".