Agreement Between Administrative Database and Medical Chart Review for the Prediction of Chronic Kidney Disease G category
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major health issue and cardiovascular risk factor. Validity assessment of administrative data for the detection of CKD in research for drug benefit and risk using real-world data is important. Existing algorithms have limitations and we need to develop new algorithms using administrative data, giving the importance of drug benefit/risk ratio in real world.Objective:The aim of this study was to validate a predictive algorithm for CKD GFR category 4-5 (eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 but not receiving dialysis or CKD G4-5ND) using the administrative databases of the province of Quebec relative to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as a reference standard.Design:This is a retrospective cohort study using chart collection and administrative databases.Setting:The study was conducted in a community outpatient medical clinic and pre-dialysis outpatient clinic in downtown Montreal and rural area.Patients:Patient medical files with at least 2 serum creatinine measures (up to 1 year apart) between September 1, 2013, and June 30, 2015, were reviewed consecutively (going back in time from the day we started the study). We excluded patients with end-stage renal disease on dialysis. The study was started in September 2013.Measurement:Glomerular filtration rate was estimated using the CKD Epidemiological Collaboration (CKD-EPI) from each patient’s file. Several algorithms were developed using 3 administrative databases with different combinations of physician claims (diagnostics and number of visits) and hospital discharge data in the 5 years prior to the cohort entry, as well as specific drug use and medical intervention in preparation for dialysis in the 2 years prior to the cohort entry.Methods:Chart data were used to assess eGFR. The validity of various algorithms for detection of CKD groups was assessed with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).Results:A total of 434 medical files were reviewed; mean age of patients was 74.2 ± 10.6 years, and 83% were older than 65 years. Sensitivity of algorithm #3 (diagnosis within 2-5 years and/or specific drug use within 2 years and nephrologist visit ≥4 within 2-5 years) in identification of CKD G4-5ND ranged from 82.5% to 89.0%, specificity from 97.1% to 98.9% with PPV and NPV ranging from 94.5% to 97.7% and 91.1% to 94.2%, respectively. The subsequent subgroup analysis (diabetes, hypertension, and <65 and ≥65 years) and also the comparisons of predicted prevalence in a cohort of older adults relative to published data emphasized the accuracy of our algorithm for patients with severe CKD (CKD G4-5ND).Limitations:Our cohort comprised mostly older adults, and results may not be generalizable to all adults. Participants with CKD without 2 serum creatinine measurements up to 1 year apart were excluded.Conclusions:The case definition of severe CKD G4-5ND derived from an algorithm using diagnosis code, drug use, and nephrologist visits from administrative databases is a valid algorithm compared with medical chart reviews in older adults.
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 | 0.029 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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".