Validation of case-ascertainment algorithms using health administrative data to identify people who inject drugs in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Health administrative data can be used to improve the health of people who inject drugs by informing public health surveillance and program planning, monitoring, and evaluation. However, methodological gaps in the use of these data persist due to challenges in accurately identifying injection drug use (IDU) at the population level. In this study, we validated case-ascertainment algorithms for identifying people who inject drugs using health administrative data in Ontario, Canada. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Data from cohorts of people with recent (past 12 months) IDU, including those participating in community-based research studies or seeking drug treatment, were linked to health administrative data in Ontario from 1992 to 2020. We assessed the validity of algorithms to identify IDU over varying look-back periods (ie, all years of data [1992 onwards] or within the past 1-5 years), including inpatient and outpatient physician billing claims for drug use, emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalizations for drug use or injection-related infections, and opioid agonist treatment (OAT). RESULTS: Algorithms were validated using data from 15,241 people with recent IDU (918 in community cohorts and 14,323 seeking drug treatment). An algorithm consisting of ≥1 physician visit, ED visit, or hospitalization for drug use, or OAT record could effectively identify IDU history (91.6% sensitivity and 94.2% specificity) and recent IDU (using 3-year look back: 80.4% sensitivity, 99% specificity) among community cohorts. Algorithms were generally more sensitive among people who inject drugs seeking drug treatment. CONCLUSION: Validated algorithms using health administrative data performed well in identifying people who inject drugs. Despite their high sensitivity and specificity, the positive predictive value of these algorithms will vary depending on the underlying prevalence of IDU in the population in which they are applied.
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 | 0.027 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".