Evaluation of administrative case definitions for hypertension in Canadian children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension is increasing in children and warrants disease surveillance. We therefore sought to evaluate the validity of case definitions to identify pediatric hypertension in administrative healthcare data. Cases of hypertension in children 3-18 years of age were identified utilizing blood pressures recorded in the Manitoba Primary Care Research Network (MaPCReN) electronic medical record from 2014 to 2016. Prevalence of hypertension and associated clinical characteristics were determined. We then evaluated the validity of 18 case definitions combining outpatient physician visits (ICD9CM codes), hospital claims (ICD9CM/ICD10 codes) and antihypertensive use within 1-3 years of data housed at the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy. The MaPCReN database identified 241 children with hypertension and 4090 without (prevalence = 5.6%). The sensitivity of algorithms ranged between 0.18 and 0.51 and the specificity between 0.98 and 1.00. Pharmaceutical use increased the sensitivity of algorithms significantly. The algorithms with the highest sensitivity and area under the ROC curve were 1 or more hospitalization OR 1 or more physician claim OR 1 or more pharmaceutical record. Evaluating 2 years of data is recommended. Administrative data alone reflects diagnosis of hypertension with high specificity, but underestimate the true prevalence of this disease. Alternative data sources are therefore required for disease surveillance.
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 | 0.036 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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".