Validating new coding algorithms to improve identification of alcohol-associated and nonalcohol-associated cirrhosis hospitalizations in administrative databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alcohol (AC) and nonalcohol-associated cirrhosis (NAC) epidemiology studies are limited by available case definitions. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of previous and newly developed case definitions to identify AC and NAC hospitalizations. METHODS: We randomly selected 700 hospitalizations from the 2008 to 2022 Canadian Discharge Abstract Database with alcohol-associated and cirrhosis-related International Classification of Diseases 10th revision codes. We compared standard approaches for AC (ie, AC code alone and alcohol use disorder and nonspecific cirrhosis codes together) and NAC (ie, NAC codes alone) case identification to newly developed approaches that combine standard approaches with new code combinations. Using electronic medical record review as the reference standard, we calculated case definition positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC. RESULTS: Electronic medical records were available for 671 admissions; 252 had confirmed AC and 195 NAC. Compared to previous AC definitions, the newly developed algorithm selecting for the AC code, alcohol-associated hepatic failure code, or alcohol use disorder code with a decompensated cirrhosis-related condition or NAC code provided the best overall positive predictive value (91%, 95% CI: 87-95), negative predictive value (89%, CI: 86-92), sensitivity (81%, CI: 76-86), specificity (96%, CI: 93-97), and AUROC (0.88, CI: 0.85-0.91). Comparing all evaluated NAC definitions, high sensitivity (92%, CI: 87-95), specificity (82%, CI: 79-86), negative predictive value (96%, CI: 94-98), AUROC (0.87, CI: 0.84-0.90), but relatively low positive predictive value (68%, CI: 62-74) were obtained by excluding alcohol use disorder codes and using either a NAC code in any diagnostic position or a primary diagnostic code for HCC, unspecified/chronic hepatic failure, esophageal varices without bleeding, or hepatorenal syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: New case definitions show enhanced accuracy for identifying hospitalizations for AC and NAC compared to previously used approaches.
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 | 0.081 | 0.236 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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".