Characterizing the limitations of using diagnosis codes in the context of machine learning for healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Importance Diagnostic codes are commonly used as inputs for clinical prediction models, to create labels for prediction tasks, and to identify cohorts for multicenter network studies. However, the coverage rates of diagnostic codes and their variability across institutions are underexplored. Objective Primary objective was to describe lab- and diagnosis-based labels for 7 selected outcomes at three institutions. Secondary objectives were to describe agreement, sensitivity, and specificity of diagnosis-based labels against lab-based labels. Methods This study included three cohorts: SickKids Peds from The Hospital for Sick Children, and Stanford Peds and Stanford Adults from Stanford Medicine. We included seven clinical outcomes with lab-based definitions: acute kidney injury, hyperkalemia, hypoglycemia, hyponatremia, anemia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. For each outcome, we created four lab-based labels (abnormal, mild, moderate and severe) based on test result and one diagnosis-based label. Proportion of admissions with a positive label were presented for each outcome stratified by cohort. Using lab-based labels as the gold standard, agreement using Cohen’s Kappa, sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each lab-based severity level. Results The number of admissions included were: SickKids Peds (n=59,298), Stanford Peds (n=24,639) and Stanford Adults (n=159,985). The proportion of admissions with a positive diagnosis-based label was significantly higher for Stanford Peds compared to SickKids Peds across all outcomes, with odds ratio (99.9% confidence interval) for abnormal diagnosis-based label ranging from 2.2 (1.7-2.7) for neutropenia to 18.4 (10.1-33.4) for hyperkalemia. Lab-based labels were more similar by institution. When using lab-based labels as the gold standard, Cohen’s Kappa and sensitivity were lower at SickKids Peds for all severity levels compared to Stanford Peds . Conclusions Across multiple outcomes, diagnosis codes were consistently different between the two pediatric institutions. This difference was not explained by differences in test results. These results may have implications for machine learning model development and deployment.
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 | 0.209 | 0.655 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".