Validating pertussis data measures using electronic medical record data in Ontario, Canada 1986–2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pertussis is a reportable disease in many countries, but ascertainment bias has limited data accuracy. This study aims to validate pertussis data measures using a reference standard that incorporates different suspected case severities, allowing for the impact of case severity on accuracy and detection to be explored. Methods: We evaluated 25 pertussis detection algorithms in a primary care electronic medical record database between January 1, 1986 and December 30, 2016. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). We used sensitivity analyses to explore areas of uncertainty and evaluated reasons for lack of detection. Results: The algorithm including all data measures achieved the highest sensitivity at 20.6%. Sensitivity increased to 100% after reclassifying symptom-only cases as non-cases, but the PPV remained low. Age at first episode was significantly associated with detection in half of the tested scenarios, and false negatives often had some history of immunization. Conclusions: Sensitivity improved by reclassifying symptom-only cases but remained low unless multiple data sources were used. Results demonstrate a trade-off between PPV and sensitivity. EMRs can enhance detection through patient history and clinical note data. It is essential to improve case identification of older individuals with vaccination history to reduce ascertainment bias.
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 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".