Supplementary Material for: A Validation Study of Administrative Data Algorithms to Identify Patients with Parkinsonism with Prevalence and Incidence Trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Epidemiological studies for identifying patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) or Parkinsonism (PKM) have been limited by their nonrandom sampling techniques and mainly veteran populations. This reduces their use for health services planning. The purpose of this study was to validate algorithms for the case ascertainment of PKM from administrative databases using primary care patients as the reference standard. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart abstraction using a random sample of 73,003 adults aged ≥20 years from a primary care Electronic Medical Record Administrative data Linked Database (EMRALD) in Ontario, Canada. Physician diagnosis in the EMR was used as the reference standard and population-based administrative databases were used to identify patients with PKM from the derivation of algorithms. We calculated algorithm performance using sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values and then determined the population-level prevalence and incidence trends with the most accurate algorithms. Results: We selected, ‘2 physician billing codes in 1 year' as the optimal administrative data algorithm in adults and seniors (≥65 years) due to its sensitivity (70.6-72.3%), specificity (99.9-99.8%), positive predictive value (79.5-82.8%), negative predictive value (99.9-99.7%), and prevalence (0.28-1.20%), respectively. Conclusions: Algorithms using administrative databases can reliably identify patients with PKM with a high degree of accuracy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.647 | 0.101 |
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".