Field testing a new ICD coding system: methods and early experiences with ICD-11 Beta Version 2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective A beta version (2018) of International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision for MMS (ICD-11), needed testing. Field-testing involves real-world application of the new codes to examine usability. We describe creating a dataset and characterizing the usability of ICD-11 code set by coders. We compare ICD-11 against ICD-10-CA (Canadian modification) and a reference standard dataset of diagnoses. Real-world usability encompasses code selection and time to code a complete inpatient chart using ICD-11 compared with ICD-10-CA. Methods and results A random sample of inpatient records previously coded using ICD-10-CA was selected from hospitals in Calgary, Alberta (N = 2896). Nurses examined these charts for conditions and healthcare-related harms. Clinical coders re-coded the same charts using ICD-11 codes. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) and coding time improved with ICD-11 coding experience (23.6 to 9.9 min average per chart). Code structure comparisons and challenges encountered are described. Overall, 86.3% of main condition codes matched. Coder comments regarding duplicate codes, missing codes, code finding issues enabled improvements to the ICD-11 Browser, Coding Tool, and Reference Guide. Training is essential for solid IRR with 17,000 diagnostic categories in the new ICD-11. As countries transition to ICD-11, our coding experiences and methods can inform users for implementation or field testing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".