Canadian Family Physician Preferences on Updating the Classification System for Health Conditions and Related Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physician billing claims are used to inform health system planning and for other secondary purposes. In most provinces/territories, diagnoses are coded using a system adopted in 1979, the International Classification of Diseases version 9 (ICD-9). This study aimed to understand the perspectives of family physicians on updating ICD-9. Canadian family physicians completed an online patient vignette coding exercise and electronic survey to capture preferences on two newer coding systems (ICD-11; International Classification for Primary Care version 3 [ICPC-3]), compared with the current ICD-9 system. The focus of this paper is the survey data, which were analyzed descriptively. One hundred and sixty-one family physicians from six provinces participated. Over half of them (58%) stated that ICD-9 should be replaced, and 86% of them felt confident learning a new coding system. After the coding exercise, most participants reported that they were very or somewhat satisfied with both newer systems (77% for ICD-11; 73% for ICPC-3). Family physicians in our study support replacing the outdated ICD-9 system to better reflect their workload and patient complexity. This paper provides recommendations for provinces/territories considering modernizing physician billing requirements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".