MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416566016 · doi:10.1177/18333583251392355

ICD-11 in Canada: Leveraging crosswalks to evaluate adoption, impact and transition strategies

2025· article· en· W4416566016 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Information Management Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchema crosswalkHealth careTransition (genetics)Project commissioningData collectionPublishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: (ICD-11) is a modern classification system that provides enhanced granularity and flexibility for capturing clinical and health system data. For Canada, transitioning from ICD-10-CA, the Canadian modification, to ICD-11 poses opportunities and challenges. To explore these opportunities and challenges more thoroughly, a backward crosswalk was developed to evaluate statistical continuity. This approach helped identify the benefits of ICD-11, while also highlighting potential implications for health systems, case mix, and national health indicator reporting. OBJECTIVE: To examine how bidirectional crosswalks between ICD-10-CA and ICD-11 can support Canada's transition to ICD-11; and demonstrate how these crosswalks can be utilised in a Canadian-specific use case. METHOD: 14,652 ICD-11 Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (2022 release) codes were mapped to version 2022 ICD-10-CA codes. Each mapping was reviewed to determine the relationship between the ICD-11 and ICD-10-CA codes, categorising them as equivalent to, broader than or narrower than the source ICD-11 codes. The bidirectional crosswalks were applied to a Canadian use case to demonstrate level of specificity between ICD-10-CA and ICD-11 codes. RESULTS: 26% of the ICD-10-CA target codes were equivalent to a single ICD-11 code, 65% were broader, 9% were narrower and 0.03% had no applicable ICD-11 map. Findings from the Canadian use case showed that 55% of the ICD-11 target codes were equivalent to or narrower than their ICD-10-CA source codes in the forward crosswalk, and 57% of ICD-11 congenital anomaly concepts had greater specificity in the backward crosswalk. CONCLUSION: The backward crosswalk assessment highlights the benefits of ICD-11's increased specificity, which has the potential to enhance healthcare data in Canada. However, these findings must be considered alongside the forward crosswalk analysis, which noted a loss in specificity.Implications for health information management practice:As demonstrated in a Canadian use case example, bidirectional crosswalks can be leveraged to better understand the impact of ICD-11 adoption.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.341 · 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