Evaluation of SNOMED CT Grouper Accuracy and Coverage in Organizing the Electronic Health Record Problem List by Clinical System: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The problem list (PL) is a repository of diagnoses for patients' medical conditions and health-related issues. Unfortunately, over time, our PLs have become overloaded with duplications, conflicting entries, and no-longer-valid diagnoses. The lack of a standardized structure for review adds to the challenges of clinical use. Previously, our default electronic health record (EHR) organized the PL primarily via alphabetization, with other options available, for example, organization by clinical systems or priority settings. The system's PL was built with limited groupers, resulting in many diagnoses that were inconsistent with the expected clinical systems or not associated with any clinical systems at all. As a consequence of these limited EHR configuration options, our PL organization has poorly supported clinical use over time, particularly as the number of diagnoses on the PL has increased. Objective: We aimed to measure the accuracy of sorting PL diagnoses into PL system groupers based on Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) concept groupers implemented in our EHR. Methods: We transformed and developed 21 system- or condition-based groupers, using 1211 SNOMED CT hierarchal concepts refined with Boolean logic, to reorganize the PL in our EHR. To evaluate the clinical utility of our new groupers, we extracted all diagnoses on the PLs from a convenience sample of 50 patients with 3 or more encounters in the previous year. To provide a spectrum of clinical diagnoses, we included patients from all ages and divided them by sex in a deidentified format. Two physicians independently determined whether each diagnosis was correctly attributed to the expected clinical system grouper. Discrepancies were discussed, and if no consensus was reached, they were adjudicated by a third physician. Descriptive statistics and Cohen κ statistics for interrater reliability were calculated. Results: Our 50-patient sample had a total of 869 diagnoses (range 4-59; median 12, IQR 9-24). The reviewers initially agreed on 821 system attributions. Of the remaining 48 items, 16 required adjudication with the tie-breaking third physician. The calculated κ statistic was 0.7. The PL groupers appropriately associated diagnoses to the expected clinical system with a sensitivity of 97.6%, a specificity of 58.7%, a positive predictive value of 96.8%, and an F1-score of 0.972. Conclusions: We found that PL organization by clinical specialty or condition using SNOMED CT concept groupers accurately reflects clinical systems. Our system groupers were subsequently adopted by our vendor EHR in their foundation system for PL organization.
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 | 0.026 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".