Moderate sensitivity and high specificity of emergency department administrative data for transient ischemic attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Validation of administrative data case definitions is key for accurate passive surveillance of disease. Transient ischemic attack (TIA) is a condition primarily managed in the emergency department. However, prior validation studies have focused on data after inpatient hospitalization. We aimed to determine the validity of the Canadian 10th International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CA) codes for TIA in the national ambulatory administrative database. Methods We performed a diagnostic accuracy study of four ICD-10-CA case definition algorithms for TIA in the emergency department setting. The study population was obtained from two ongoing studies on the diagnosis of TIA and minor stroke versus stroke mimic using serum biomarkers and neuroimaging. Two reference standards were used 1) the emergency department clinical diagnosis determined by chart abstractors and 2) the 90-day final diagnosis, both obtained by stroke neurologists, to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of the ICD-10-CA algorithms for TIA. Results Among 417 patients, emergency department adjudication showed 163 (39.1%) TIA, 155 (37.2%) ischemic strokes, and 99 (23.7%) stroke mimics. The most restrictive algorithm, defined as a TIA code in the main position had the lowest sensitivity (36.8%), but highest specificity (92.5%) and PPV (76.0%). The most inclusive algorithm, defined as a TIA code in any position with and without query prefix had the highest sensitivity (63.8%), but lowest specificity (81.5%) and PPV (68.9%). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were overall lower when using the 90-day diagnosis as reference standard. Conclusions Emergency department administrative data reflect diagnosis of suspected TIA with high specificity, but underestimate the burden of disease. Future studies are necessary to understand the reasons for the low to moderate sensitivity.
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) | 0.000 | 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".