Validity and reliability International Classification of Diseases-10 codes for all forms of injury: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intentional and unintentional injuries are a leading cause of death and disability globally. International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes are used to classify injuries in administrative health data and are widely used for health care planning and delivery, research, and policy. However, a systematic review of their overall validity and reliability has not yet been done. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the validity and reliability of external cause injury ICD-10 codes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and SCOPUS were searched (inception to April 2023) for validity and/or reliability studies of ICD-10 external cause injury codes in all countries for all ages. We examined all available data for external cause injuries and injuries related to specific body regions. Validity was defined by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Reliability was defined by inter-rater reliability (IRR), measured by Krippendorff's alpha, Cohen's Kappa, and/or Fleiss' kappa. RESULTS: Twenty-seven published studies from 2006 to 2023 were included. Across all injuries, the mean outcome values and ranges were sensitivity: 61.6% (35.5%-96.0%), specificity: 91.6% (85.8%-100%), PPV: 74.9% (58.6%-96.5%), NPV: 80.2% (44.6%-94.4%), Cohen's kappa: 0.672 (0.480-0.928), Krippendorff's alpha: 0.453, and Fleiss' kappa: 0.630. Poisoning and hand and wrist injuries had higher mean sensitivity (84.4% and 96.0%, respectively), while self-harm and spinal cord injuries were lower (35.5% and 36.4%, respectively). Transport and pedestrian injuries and hand and wrist injuries had high PPVs (96.5% and 92.0%, respectively). Specificity and NPV were generally high, except for abuse (NPV 44.6%). CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: The validity and reliability of ICD-10 external cause injury codes vary based on the injury types coded and the outcomes examined, and overall, they only perform moderately well. Future work, potentially utilizing artificial intelligence, may improve the validity and reliability of ICD codes used to document injuries.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | Meta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| grok | Meta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | medium |
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 | 0.024 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".