Exploring the reliability of inpatient EMR algorithms for diabetes identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Accurate identification of medical conditions within a real-time inpatient setting is crucial for health systems. Current inpatient comorbidity algorithms rely on integrating various sources of administrative data, but at times, there is a considerable lag in obtaining and linking these data. Our study objective was to develop electronic medical records (EMR) data-based inpatient diabetes phenotyping algorithms. Materials and methods A chart review on 3040 individuals was completed, and 583 had diabetes. We linked EMR data on these individuals to the International Classification of Disease (ICD) administrative databases. The following EMR-data-based diabetes algorithms were developed: (1) laboratory data, (2) medication data, (3) laboratory and medications data, (4) diabetes concept keywords and (5) diabetes free-text algorithm. Combined algorithms used or statements between the above algorithms. Algorithm performances were measured using chart review as a gold standard. We determined the best-performing algorithm as the one that showed the high performance of sensitivity (SN), and positive predictive value (PPV). Results The algorithms tested generally performed well: ICD-coded data, SN 0.84, specificity (SP) 0.98, PPV 0.93 and negative predictive value (NPV) 0.96; medication and laboratory algorithm, SN 0.90, SP 0.95, PPV 0.80 and NPV 0.97; all document types algorithm, SN 0.95, SP 0.98, PPV 0.94 and NPV 0.99. Discussion Free-text data-based diabetes algorithm can yield comparable or superior performance to a commonly used ICD-coded algorithm and could supplement existing methods. These types of inpatient EMR-based algorithms for case identification may become a key method for timely resource planning and care delivery.
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 | 0.057 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".