Validation of a Case Definition to Identify Patients Diagnosed With Cardiovascular Disease in Canadian Primary Care Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. This study validates a primary care-based electronic medical record case definition for CVD.MethodsThis retrospective, cross-sectional study explores electronic medical record data from 1574 primary care providers participating in the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network. A reference standard was created by reviewing medical records of a subset of patients in this network (n = 2017) for coronary artery disease (CAD), cerebrovascular disease (CeVD), and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). Together, these data produced a CVD reference. We applied validated case definitions to an active patient population (≥ 1 visit between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019) to estimate prevalence using the exact binomial test (N = 689,301). Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and t tests characterized patients with vs without CVD.ResultsThe optimal CVD Case Definition 2 had a sensitivity of 68.5% (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 61.6%-74.8%), a specificity of 97.8% (95% CI: 97.0%-98.4%), a positive predictive value of 77.7% (95% CI: 71.6%-82.7%), and a negative predictive value of 96.5% (95% CI: 95.8%-97.1%). Included in this CVD definition was a strong CAD case definition with sensitivity of 91.6% (95% CI: 84.6%-96.1%), specificity of 98.3% (95% CI: 97.6%-98.8%), a PPV of 74.8% (95% CI: 67.8%-80.7%), and an NPV of 99.5% (95% CI: 99.1%-99.7%). This CVD definition also included CeVD and PVD case definitions with low sensitivity (77.6% and 36.6%) but high specificity (98.6% and 99.0%). The estimated prevalence of CVD among primary care patients is 11.2% (95% CI, 11.1%-11.3%; n = 77,064); the majority had CAD (6.4%).ConclusionsThis study validated a definition of CVD and its component parts—CAD, CeVD, and PVD. Understanding the prevalence and disease burden for patients with CVD within primary care settings can improve prevention and disease management.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".