EMERGING THEMES IN EPIDEMIOLOGY REVIEW Open Access Defining neurotrauma in administrative data using the International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It is essential to use a definition that is precise and accurate for the surveillance of traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and spinal cord injuries (SCI). This paper reviews the International Classification of Diseases 10 th revision (ICD-10) definitions used internationally to inform the definition for neurotrauma surveillance using administrative data in Ontario, Canada. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Medline and the grey literature were searched for keywords “spinal cord injuries ” or “brain injuries ” and “international classification of diseases”. All papers and reports that used an ICD-10 definition were included. To determine the ICD-10 codes for inclusion consensus across papers and additional evidence were sought to look at the correlation between the condition and brain or spinal injuries. Results: Twenty-four articles and reports were identified; 15 unique definitions for TBI and 7 for SCI were found. The definitions recommended for use in Ontario by this paper are F07.2, S02.0, S02.1, S02.3, S02.7, S02.8, S02.9, S06, S07.1, T90.2, and T90.5 for traumatic brain injuries and S14.0, S14.1, S24.0, S24.1, S34.1, S34.0, S34.3, T06.0, T06.1 and T91.3 for spinal cord injuries. Conclusions: Internationally, inconsistent definitions are used to define brain and spinal cord injuries. An abstraction study of data would be an asset in understanding the effects of inclusion and exclusion of codes in the
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 | 0.020 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".