Development and validation of a case identification algorithm for hand trauma patients using health administrative data and the epidemiology of hand trauma in a universal healthcare system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our primary objectives were (1) to develop and validate an administrative data algorithm for the identification of hand trauma cases using clinical diagnoses documented in medical records as the reference standard and (2) to estimate the incidence of hand trauma in a universal public healthcare system from 1993 to 2023 using a population-based research cohort constructed using a validated case identification algorithm. DESIGN: A population-based retrospective validation study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada, from 2022 to 2023 (validation) and from 1993 to 2023 (estimation). PARTICIPANTS: Our reference standard was the known hand trauma status of 301 patients (N=147 with hand trauma) who presented to an urban tertiary-care hand trauma centre in Toronto, Ontario. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the optimal algorithm to identify hand trauma using provincial health administrative data and (2) age-standardised and sex-standardised incidence rates of hand trauma among men and women, by age, and by area of patient residence. RESULTS: The optimal algorithm had a sensitivity of 73.8% (95% CI 66.6% to 81.0%), specificity of 80.1% (95% CI 73.8% to 86.5%), positive predictive value of 78.1% (95% CI 71.2% to 85.0%) and negative predictive value of 76.1% (95% CI 69.5% to 82.7%). Over the study period, the age-standardised and sex-standardised incidence of hand trauma increased from 384 to 530 per 100 000. The greatest increase was observed in males and individuals aged 0-19 and 80+, with higher incidence rates in Southern compared with Northern Ontario. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithm enabled identification of hand trauma cases using health administrative data suitable for population-level surveillance and health services research, revealing a rising burden of hand trauma from 1993 to 2023. These findings can support improved surveillance, resource allocation and care delivery for this public health problem.
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 | 0.025 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".