RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Performance of a Computational Phenotyping Algorithm for Sarcoidosis Using Diagnostic Codes in Electronic Medical Records: A Pilot Study from Two Veterans Affairs Medical Centers
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.02.02.21250980
DO 10.1101/2021.02.02.21250980
A1 Mohamed I Seedahmed
A1 Izabella Mogilnicka
A1 Siyang Zeng
A1 Gang Luo
A1 Charles McCulloch
A1 Laura Koth
A1 Mehrdad Arjomandi
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/05/2021.02.02.21250980.abstract
AB Background The accuracy of identifying sarcoidosis cases in electronic medical records (EMR) using diagnostic codes is unknown.Methods To estimate the statistical performance of using diagnostic codes, ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes in identifying sarcoidosis cases in EMR, we searched the San Francisco and Palo Alto Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers EMR and randomly selected 200 patients coded as sarcoidosis. To further improve diagnostic accuracy, we developed an “index of suspicion” algorithm to identify probable sarcoidosis cases based on clinical and radiographic features. We then determined the positive predictive value (PPV) of diagnosing sarcoidosis by two computational methods using ICD only and ICD plus the “index of suspicion” against the gold standard developed through manual chart review based on the American Thoracic Society (ATS) practice guideline. Finally, we determined healthcare providers’ adherence to the guidelines using a new scoring system.Results The PPV of identifying sarcoidosis cases in VA EMR using ICD codes only was 71% (95%CI=64.7%-77.3%). The inclusion of our construct of “index of suspicion” along with the ICD codes significantly increased the PPV to 90% (95%CI=85.2%-94.6%). The care of sarcoidosis patients was more likely to be classified as “Fully” or “Substantially” adherent with the ATS practice guideline if their managing provider was a specialist (45% of primary care providers vs. 74% of specialists; P=0.008).Conclusions Although ICD codes can be used as reasonable classifiers to identify sarcoidosis cases within EMR, using computational algorithms to extract clinical and radiographic information (“index of suspicion”) from unstructured data could significantly improve case identification accuracy.HighlightsIdentifying sarcoidosis cases using diagnostic codes in EMR has low accuracy.“Unstructured data” contain information useful in identifying cases of sarcoidosis.Computational algorithms could improve the accuracy and efficiency of case identification in EMR.We introduce a new scoring system for assessing healthcare providers’ compliance with the American Thoracic Society (ATS) practice guideline.Compliance scoring could help automatically assess sarcoidosis patients’ care delivery.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Trialn/aFunding StatementThis work was supported by funds from the Department of Veterans Affairs Fellowship Award to MIS; the Flight Attendants Medical Research Institute (FAMRI) (CIA190001 to MA); Department of Veterans Affairs Clinical Sciences Research and Development (CSRD) (CXV-00125 to MA); the Tobacco-related Disease Research Program of the University of California (T29IR0715 to MA).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The University of California San Francisco Institutional Review Board and the Veterans Health Administration Research and Development Committee approved this study. [IRB Protocol #15-16660].All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesDue to the sensitive nature of health data analyzed in the current study, data will remain confidential and are not publicly available.