MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Validation of adult asthma case definitions for primary care sentinel surveillance

2024· other· en· W6958947275 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Chemistry
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsthmaAuditPrimary careMedical diagnosisChartMedical recordQuality managementMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Most asthma diagnoses and patient care take place in primary care settings. Electronic medical records (EMRs) offer an opportunity to utilize technology to improve asthma diagnosis and care. The purpose of this study was to create and validate separate case definitions for suspected and confirmed asthma in primary care EMRs, to enable surveillance, benchmarking, and quality improvement in primary care settings. The objective of this study was to develop a case definition for suspected and confirmed asthma for use in a primary care sentinel surveillance system. Methods A single chart abstractor conducted a manual audit of 776 randomly selected patient charts from an academic primary care practice EMR in Kingston, Ontario. Following the single chart abstractor classification, a consensus on chart classification as “not asthma”, “suspected asthma”, or “confirmed asthma” was achieved between the abstractor, a family physician, and a respirologist using Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) criteria. Case definition algorithms based on billing codes, clinical data elements and medications were applied to the site’s Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) data for the same charts and compared to abstractor classifications to determine each algorithm’s measurement properties. Results The prevalence of suspected and confirmed asthma were 7.3% (n = 54) and 2.4% (n = 18), respectively. None of the proposed case definitions could differentiate between suspected and confirmed asthma. One algorithm consisting of billing, clinical, and medication elements had the highest Youden’s Index for either suspected or confirmed asthma. The algorithm had a sensitivity of 81%, a specificity of 96%, positive predictive value of 71%, negative predictive value of 98%, and a Youden’s Index of 0.77 for combined suspected or confirmed asthma cases. Conclusion An EMR case definition for suspected or confirmed adult asthma has been validated for use in CPCSSN. Implementation of this case definition will enable the development of a surveillance electronic tool (eTool) for adult asthma that can foster quality improvement.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0960.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicBotanical Research and ChemistryFrench-language works237,207