Differential Distributions: A refined methodology to indirect reference interval estimation by including Patient's health status according to associated ICD-10 codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Traditional methods for estimating reference intervals (RIs) using patient's blood test results from the clinical routine, typically remove outliers without considering the nuanced health statuses of patients. This removes a vast majority of test results for reference interval estimation without considering the actual health status of the patient. Methods: We introduce the Differential Distribution Method (DDM) which uses laboratory routine data coded with ICD-10 to approximate an underlying non-diseased age and sex stratified population from mixed clinical data. By removing test results that stem from subpopulations significantly different from the general population, reference intervals can be generated stratified by sex and age, taking into account the associated health conditions of the patients as derived by the ICD-10 coding system. Results: Applying the DDM to blood plasma potassium levels demonstrated its ability to adjust RIs dynamically across different patient groups. The method effectively differentiated RIs in a decade-based stratification, showing significant variability and tighter confidence intervals, particularly in older (above 60 years old) adults. The RIs were slightly wider with advancing age in both males and females, while their standard deviation was reduced by removing large portions of test results differing significantly, grouped by either their individual ICD-10 code or clusters of ICD-10 codes. Conclusions: This DDM data mining approach offers a robust framework for RI inference by generating adjusted RIs that incorporate clinical nuances reflected in ICD-10 codes. This approach not only enhances the accuracy of patient diagnostics but also facilitates the identification of potential multimorbidities affecting laboratory results.
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 | 0.017 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".