Identification of people with low prevalence diseases in administrative healthcare records: A case study of HIV in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Case-finding algorithms can be applied to administrative healthcare records to identify people with diseases, including people with HIV (PWH). When supplementing an existing registry of a low prevalence disease, near-perfect specificity helps minimize impacts of adding in algorithm-identified false positive cases. We evaluated the performance of algorithms applied to healthcare records to supplement an HIV registry in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Methods We applied algorithms based on HIV-related diagnostic codes to healthcare practitioner and hospitalization records. We evaluated 28 algorithms in a validation sub-sample of 7,124 persons with positive HIV tests (2,817 with a prior negative test) from the STOP HIV/AIDS data linkage–a linkage of healthcare, clinical, and HIV test records for PWH in BC, resembling a disease registry (1996–2020). Algorithms were primarily assessed based on their specificity–derived from this validation sub-sample–and their impact on the estimate of the total number of PWH in BC as of 2020. Results In the validation sub-sample, median age at positive HIV test was 37 years (Q1: 30, Q3: 46), 80.1% were men, and 48.9% resided in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. For all algorithms, specificity exceeded 97% and sensitivity ranged from 81% to 95%. To supplement the HIV registry, we selected an algorithm with 99.89% (95% CI: 99.76% - 100.00%) specificity and 82.21% (95% CI: 81.26% - 83.16%) sensitivity, requiring five HIV-related healthcare practitioner encounters or two HIV-related hospitalizations within a 12-month window, or one hospitalization with HIV as the most responsible diagnosis. Upon adding PWH identified by this highly-specific algorithm to the registry, 8,774 PWH were present in BC as of March 2020, of whom 333 (3.8%) were algorithm-identified. Discussion In the context of an existing low prevalence disease registry, the results of our validation study demonstrate the value of highly-specific case-finding algorithms applied to administrative healthcare records to enhance our ability to estimate the number of PWH living in BC.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".