Development and external validation of tools for categorizing diagnosis codes in international hospital data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Clinical Classification Software Refined (CCSR) is a tool that groups many thousands of International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes into approximately 500 clinically meaningful categories, simplifying analyses. However, CCSR was developed for use in the United States and may not work well with other country-specific ICD-10 coding systems. METHOD: We developed an algorithm for semi-automated matching of Canadian ICD-10 codes (ICD-10-CA) to CCSR categories using discharge diagnoses from adult admissions at 7 hospitals between Apr 1, 2010 and Dec 31, 2020, and manually validated the results. We then externally validated our approach using inpatient hospital encounters in Denmark from 2017 to 2018. KEY RESULTS: There were 383,972 Canadian hospital admissions with 5,186 distinct ICD-10-CA diagnosis codes and 1,855,837 Danish encounters with 4,612 ICD-10 diagnosis codes. Only 46.6% of Canadian codes and 49.4% of Danish codes could be directly categorized using the official CCSR tool. Our algorithm facilitated the mapping of 98.5% of all Canadian codes and 97.7% of Danish codes. Validation of our algorithm by clinicians demonstrated excellent accuracy (97.1% and 97.0% in Canadian and Danish data, respectively). Without our algorithm, many common conditions did not match directly to a CCSR category, such as 96.6% of hospital admissions for heart failure. CONCLUSION: The GEMINI CCSR matching algorithm (available as an open-source package at https://github.com/GEMINI-Medicine/gemini-ccsr) improves the categorization of Canadian and Danish ICD-10 codes into clinically coherent categories compared to the original CCSR tool. We expect this approach to generalize well to other countries and enable a wide range of research and quality measurement applications.
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 | 0.194 | 0.387 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".