MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diagnostic Codes in AI Prediction Models and Label Leakage of Same-Admission Clinical Outcomes

2025· article· en· W7117294252 on OpenAlexaff
Bashar Ramadan, Ming-Chieh Liu, Michael C. Burkhart, William F. Parker, Brett K. Beaulieu‐Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersU.S. National Library of Medicine
KeywordsPredictive modellingTrustworthinessMultiple ModelsClinical PracticeDiagnosis codeArtificial neural networkInterpretability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Artificial intelligence models that predict same-admission outcomes for hospitalized patients, such as inpatient mortality, often rely on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnostic codes, even when these codes are not finalized until after discharge. Objective: To investigate the extent to which the inclusion of ICD codes as features in predictive models are associated with inflated performance metrics via label leakage (eg, including the code for cardiac arrest into an inpatient mortality prediction model) and assess the prevalence and implications of this practice in existing literature. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study examined publicly available, deidentified inpatient electronic health record data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database. Patients admitted to an intensive care unit or emergency department at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2019, were included. These data were analyzed between December 18, 2024, and January 14, 2025. A targeted literature review of same-admission prediction models using MIMIC with ICD codes as features was performed between November 20 and 27, 2024. Main Outcome and Measures: Using a standard training-validation-test split procedure, prediction models were developed for inpatient mortality (logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost) using only ICD codes as features. Performance in the test set was analyzed using areas under the receiver operating curve and variable importance. Frequencies of studies using same-admission prediction models using MIMIC with ICD codes were calculated from the targeted literature review. Results: The study cohort consisted of 180 640 patients (mean [SD] age at admission, 58.7 [19.2] years; 53.0% female), of whom 8573 (4.7%) died during the admission. The models using ICD codes predicted in-hospital mortality with high performance in the test dataset, with areas under the receiver operating curve of 0.976 (95% CI, 0.973-0.980) (logistic regression), 0.971 (95% CI, 0.967-0.974) (random forest), and 0.973 (95% CI, 0.968-0.977) (XGBoost). The most important ICD codes were subdural hemorrhage (OR, 389.99; 95% CI, 28.79-5283.59), cardiac arrest (OR, 219.58; 95% CI, 159.61-302.08), brain death (OR, 112.78; 95% CI, 13.42-947.70), and encounter for palliative care (OR, 98.04; 95% CI, 83.16-115.58). The literature review found that 37 of 92 studies (40.2%) using MIMIC to predict same-admission outcomes included ICD codes as features, even though both MIMIC publications and documentation clearly state that ICD codes are derived after discharge. Conclusions and Relevance: This prognostic study of the MIMIC-IV database suggests that using ICD codes as features in same-admission prediction models may be a severe methodological flaw associated with inflated performance metrics, rendering models incapable of clinically useful predictions. The literature review found that the practice is common. Addressing this challenge is essential for advancing trustworthy artificial intelligence in health care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.335
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.335
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207