Assessing the Accuracy of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Coding for Delirium
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.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it