MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392586054 · doi:10.2196/52296

Improvements in Neoplasm Classification in the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision: Systematic Comparative Study With the Chinese Clinical Modification of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision

2024· article· en· W4392586054 on OpenAlex
Yicong Xu, Jingya Zhou, Hongxia Li, Dong Cai, Huanbing Zhu, Shengdong Pan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesPeking Union Medical CollegePeking Union Medical College Hospital
KeywordsICD-10Coding (social sciences)MedicineEleventhStatisticsMathematicsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision (ICD-11) improved neoplasm classification. Objective We aimed to study the alterations in the ICD-11 compared to the Chinese Clinical Modification of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10-CCM) for neoplasm classification and to provide evidence supporting the transition to the ICD-11. Methods We downloaded public data files from the World Health Organization and the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. The ICD-10-CCM neoplasm codes were manually recoded with the ICD-11 coding tool, and an ICD-10-CCM/ICD-11 mapping table was generated. The existing files and the ICD-10-CCM/ICD-11 mapping table were used to compare the coding, classification, and expression features of neoplasms between the ICD-10-CCM and ICD-11. Results The ICD-11 coding structure for neoplasms has dramatically changed. It provides advantages in coding granularity, coding capacity, and expression flexibility. In total, 27.4% (207/755) of ICD-10 codes and 38% (1359/3576) of ICD-10-CCM codes underwent grouping changes, which was a significantly different change (χ21=30.3; P<.001). Notably, 67.8% (2424/3576) of ICD-10-CCM codes could be fully represented by ICD-11 codes. Another 7% (252/3576) could be fully described by uniform resource identifiers. The ICD-11 had a significant difference in expression ability among the 4 ICD-10-CCM groups (χ23=93.7; P<.001), as well as a considerable difference between the changed and unchanged groups (χ21=74.7; P<.001). Expression ability negatively correlated with grouping changes (r=–.144; P<.001). In the ICD-10-CCM/ICD-11 mapping table, 60.5% (2164/3576) of codes were postcoordinated. The top 3 postcoordinated results were specific anatomy (1907/3576, 53.3%), histopathology (201/3576, 5.6%), and alternative severity 2 (70/3576, 2%). The expression ability of postcoordination was not fully reflected. Conclusions The ICD-11 includes many improvements in neoplasm classification, especially the new coding system, improved expression ability, and good semantic interoperability. The transition to the ICD-11 will inevitably bring challenges for clinicians, coders, policy makers and IT technicians, and many preparations will be necessary.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.380
GPT teacher head0.608
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it