ABSTRACT
Importance Diagnostic codes are commonly used as inputs for clinical prediction models, to create labels for prediction tasks, and to identify cohorts for multicenter network studies. However, the coverage rates of diagnostic codes and their variability across institutions are underexplored.
Objective Primary objective was to describe lab- and diagnosis-based labels for 7 selected outcomes at three institutions. Secondary objectives were to describe agreement, sensitivity, and specificity of diagnosis-based labels against lab-based labels.
Methods This study included three cohorts: SickKidsPeds from The Hospital for Sick Children, and StanfordPeds and StanfordAdults from Stanford Medicine. We included seven clinical outcomes with lab-based definitions: acute kidney injury, hyperkalemia, hypoglycemia, hyponatremia, anemia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. For each outcome, we created four lab-based labels (abnormal, mild, moderate and severe) based on test result and one diagnosis-based label. Proportion of admissions with a positive label were presented for each outcome stratified by cohort. Using lab-based labels as the gold standard, agreement using Cohen’s Kappa, sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each lab-based severity level.
Results The number of admissions included were: SickKidsPeds (n=59,298), StanfordPeds (n=24,639) and StanfordAdults (n=159,985). The proportion of admissions with a positive diagnosis-based label was significantly higher for StanfordPeds compared to SickKidsPeds across all outcomes, with odds ratio (99.9% confidence interval) for abnormal diagnosis-based label ranging from 2.2 (1.7-2.7) for neutropenia to 18.4 (10.1-33.4) for hyperkalemia. Lab-based labels were more similar by institution. When using lab-based labels as the gold standard, Cohen’s Kappa and sensitivity were lower at SickKidsPeds for all severity levels compared to StanfordPeds.
Conclusions Across multiple outcomes, diagnosis codes were consistently different between the two pediatric institutions. This difference was not explained by differences in test results. These results may have implications for machine learning model development and deployment.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The use of data from The Hospital for Sick Children was approved as a quality improvement project at SickKids and thus, requirement for Research Ethics Board approval and informed consent were waived by The Hospital for Sick Children. The data from Stanford Medicine was de-identified in which protected health information has been redacted. Because of de-identification, the requirement for Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent were waived by Stanford Medicine.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
