MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415872164 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-097196

Validity of the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes for lithium toxicity in adult patients at hospital admission: a cohort study in Canada

2025· article· en· W4415872164 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Fatemeh Ahmadi, Flory T. Muanda, Jennifer Ehiwario, Eric McArthur, Racquel Jandoc, Justin Slater, Matthew A. Weir, Edward G. Clark, Soham Rej, Nathan Herrmann, Amit Garg

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaJewish General HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesWestern University
FundersSchulich School of Medicine and DentistryCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAcademic Medical Organization of Southwestern OntarioLawson Health Research Institute
KeywordsLithium (medication)Cohort studyCohortDiagnosis codeCoding (social sciences)Retrospective cohort studyToxicityEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: (ICD-10) healthcare database diagnosis codes for lithium toxicity at hospital admission in Ontario, Canada. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective validation study. SETTING: A total of 152 hospitals linked to a provincial laboratory database in Ontario, Canada, from 2007 to 2023. PARTICIPANTS: Patients 50 years of age or older taking lithium with hospital-based serum lithium laboratory measurements during admission to the hospital (n=2804). OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) comparing an ICD-10 diagnostic coding algorithm for lithium toxicity to a serum lithium concentration of 1.5 mmol/L or more. The codes used in the algorithm were T568, T435, Y495, X41 and X49. Serum lithium values and changes in the concentration of serum lithium from baseline levels in patients with and without a diagnosis code for lithium toxicity (code-positive and code-negative, respectively). RESULTS: The sensitivity of the ICD-10 coding algorithm for identifying a serum lithium level≥1.5 mmol/L was 84% (95% CI 81% to 87%). The specificity and the NPV were over 88%, and the PPV was 63% (95% CI 60% to 66%). The median (IQR) serum lithium measurement in code-positive patients was 1.7 (1.2 to 2.2) mmol/L, and it was 0.6 (0.4 to 0.9) mmol/L in code-negative patients. The median (IQR) increase in serum lithium concentration compared with the most recent prehospital baseline values was 0.7 (0.2 to 1.3) mmol/L in code-positive patients and 0.0 (-0.2 to 0.2) mmol/L in code-negative patients. CONCLUSION: In Ontario, the sensitivity of the ICD-10 coding algorithms was moderate for identifying a serum lithium level≥1.5 mmol/L at hospital admission. The presence or absence of the ICD-10 codes for lithium toxicity at hospital admission successfully differentiated two groups of patients with distinct serum lithium measurements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicBipolar Disorder and Treatment→French-language works237,207→