Assessing the impact of transitioning to 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) on comorbidity indices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to support the implementation of the 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). We used common comorbidity indices as a case study for proactively assessing the impact of transitioning to ICD-11 for mortality and morbidity statistics (ICD-11-MMS) on real-world data analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the MIMIC IV database and a table of mappings between the clinical modification of previous versions of ICD and ICD-11-MMS, we assembled a population whose diagnosis can be represented in ICD-11-MMS. We assessed the impact of ICD version on cross-sectional analyses by comparing the populations' distribution of Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices (CCI, ECI) across different ICD versions, along with the adjustment in comorbidity weighting. RESULTS: We found that ICD versioning could lead to (1) alterations in the population distribution and (2) changes in the weight that can be assigned to a comorbidity category in a reweighting initiative. In addition, this study allowed the creation of the corresponding ICD-11-MMS codes list for each component of the CCI and the ECI. DISCUSSION: In common with the implementations of previous versions of ICD, implementation of ICD-11-MMS potentially hinders comparability of comorbidity burden on health outcomes in research and clinical settings. CONCLUSION: Further research is essential to enhance ICD-11-MMS usability, while mitigating, after identification, its adverse effects on comparability of analyses.
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 | 0.074 | 0.238 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".