Validated Administrative Data-Based ICD-10 Algorithms for Chronic Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to identify ICD-10 based validated algorithms for chronic conditions using health administrative data. MethodsA comprehensive systematic literature search using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL was performed to identify studies, published between 1983 and May 2023, on validated algorithms for chronic conditions using administrative health data. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full text of selected studies to complete data extraction. A third reviewer resolved conflicts arising at the screening or study selection stages. The primary outcome was validated studies of ICD-10 based algorithms with both sensitivity and PPV of ≥70%. Studies with either sensitivity or PPV <70% were included as secondary outcomes. ResultsOverall, the search identified 1686 studies of which 55 met the inclusion criteria. Combining a previously published literature search, a total of 61 studies were included for data extraction. Of these, 30 studies demonstrated algorithms with high validity and 30 showed moderate validity. Studies with highly valid algorithms were based on administrative data from different countries including Canada, USA, Australia, Japan, France, South Korea, and Taiwan. Validated algorithms with PPV and sensitivity of ≥70% were identified for more than 40 chronic conditions that included several types of cancers, cardiovascular conditions, kidney diseases, gastrointestinal disorders, and peripheral vascular diseases, amongst others. ConclusionWith ICD-10 prominently used across the world, this up-to-date systematic review can prove to be a helpful resource for research and surveillance initiatives using administrative health data for identifying chronic conditions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".