MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404809052 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.6160

Validation of Mood and Anxiety Disorder Case Definitions using Primary Care Electronics Medical Records

2024· article· en· W4404809052 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBig Data · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoodPrimary careAnxietyMedical recordPsychologyElectronicsPsychiatryClinical psychologyMedicineFamily medicineEngineeringElectrical engineeringInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Context:</h3> Mental health conditions have increasing prevalence, co-occurrence, and high management burden within primary care settings. <h3>Objective:</h3> To validate and apply electronic medical record (EMR)-based definitions for mood and anxiety disorders (inc. depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder), and schizophrenia. <h3>Study Design:</h3> Retrospective cross-sectional study. Setting: De-identified EMR data from 1,574 primary care providers participating in the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN). <h3>Population:</h3> 1,692,987 patients from seven Canadian provinces with a visit between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2021. <h3>Intervention/Instrument:</h3> The reference set included 2,488 randomly selected patients, including 434 (17.4%) positive cases (i.e. depression n=249, anxiety n=261, bipolar disorder n=19, schizophrenia n = 6) and 2,054 (82.6%) negatives. A second reference set for schizophrenia was created that included 760 patients (30 [3.9%] positive and 730 [96.1%] negative). <h3>Outcome Measures:</h3> We assessed agreement between 29 case definitions and the reference set using the following metrics sensitivity (sen), specificity (spec), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV). Prevalence and 95% confidence limits were computed using exact binomial test. Exploratory analysis assessed co-occurrence of conditions. <h3>Results:</h3> Definition 11 captured anxiety, depression, and bi-polar diagnoses with sen 80.7, spec 88.7, PPV 59.9, and NPV 95.7 and an estimated prevalence of 21.8% (21.7-21.9). When validated separately depression produced moderate agreement (sen 79.9, spec 94.2, PPV 60.5, NPV 97.7), whereas anxiety and bipolar disorder had notably lower agreement (anxiety: sen 53.6, spec 87.9, PPV 34.2, NPV 94.2; bipolar: sen 89.5, spec 98.3, PPV 28.8, NPV 99.9). The inclusion of psychosis in mood and anxiety definitions did not improve agreement (sen 95.2, spec, 80.7, PPV, 51.0), however alone schizophrenia had high agreement (sen 93.3, spec 100, PPV 100, NPV 99.9). There was high co-occurrence of anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder with the majority of patients diagnosed with ≥2 conditions. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> We found high co-occurrence of anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder. Algorithms to capture these conditions together produced stronger agreement compared to individual definitions. Application of validated algorithms to capture mental health conditions can inform disease surveillance and health system planning.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.356
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.119 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it