Comparison of Rule-Based Algorithms to Identify Patients With Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies in Electronic Health Records.

IF 2.9 Q2 RHEUMATOLOGY
Ana Lucia Valle, Amy Vo, Rochelle L Castillo, Yumeko Kawano, Leah M Santacroce, Daniel H Solomon, Katherine P Liao, Candace H Feldman
{"title":"Comparison of Rule-Based Algorithms to Identify Patients With Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies in Electronic Health Records.","authors":"Ana Lucia Valle, Amy Vo, Rochelle L Castillo, Yumeko Kawano, Leah M Santacroce, Daniel H Solomon, Katherine P Liao, Candace H Feldman","doi":"10.1002/acr2.90102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Studying rare diseases requires assembling robust, correctly classified cohorts. We compared the performance of seven published International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code rule-based algorithms in the electronic health record (EHR) to identify cases of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified patients seen at a multihospital academic medical center with one or more ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes for IIM (2000-2024). From this cohort, a random sample of 250 cases was selected for chart review for IIM based on the 2017 EULAR/American College of Rheumatology IIM classification criteria. Review was performed by two reviewers and adjudicated by a third. The performance of the algorithms was compared against (1) definite and (2) definite and probable cases of IIM. Positive predictive value (PPV), specificity, sensitivity, and negative predictive value were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 250 charts, 87 definite and 28 probable IIM cases were identified. The algorithm with the highest PPV (84%) relied on ICD 9/10 codes obtained during hospitalizations but excluded ≥80% of cases with a sensitivity of 14%. Use of two or more ICD codes ≤60 days apart obtained the second highest PPV (79%) and identified 82 cases. Use of two or more ICD codes between 30 and 365 days apart obtained the third highest PPV (78%). These top-performing algorithms included definite and probable cases of IIM.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Several rule-based ICD code algorithms had PPVs ranging from 77% to 84% but had lower sensitivity (14%-63%). Limitations of this study include modifications to some of the original algorithms. Future algorithms may benefit from incorporating additional EHR data and natural language processing methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":93845,"journal":{"name":"ACR open rheumatology","volume":"8 7","pages":"e90102"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13341964/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACR open rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acr2.90102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Studying rare diseases requires assembling robust, correctly classified cohorts. We compared the performance of seven published International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code rule-based algorithms in the electronic health record (EHR) to identify cases of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).

Methods: We identified patients seen at a multihospital academic medical center with one or more ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes for IIM (2000-2024). From this cohort, a random sample of 250 cases was selected for chart review for IIM based on the 2017 EULAR/American College of Rheumatology IIM classification criteria. Review was performed by two reviewers and adjudicated by a third. The performance of the algorithms was compared against (1) definite and (2) definite and probable cases of IIM. Positive predictive value (PPV), specificity, sensitivity, and negative predictive value were calculated.

Results: Of 250 charts, 87 definite and 28 probable IIM cases were identified. The algorithm with the highest PPV (84%) relied on ICD 9/10 codes obtained during hospitalizations but excluded ≥80% of cases with a sensitivity of 14%. Use of two or more ICD codes ≤60 days apart obtained the second highest PPV (79%) and identified 82 cases. Use of two or more ICD codes between 30 and 365 days apart obtained the third highest PPV (78%). These top-performing algorithms included definite and probable cases of IIM.

Conclusion: Several rule-based ICD code algorithms had PPVs ranging from 77% to 84% but had lower sensitivity (14%-63%). Limitations of this study include modifications to some of the original algorithms. Future algorithms may benefit from incorporating additional EHR data and natural language processing methods.

基于规则的算法在电子健康记录中识别特发性炎性肌病患者的比较
目的:研究罕见病需要建立可靠的、正确分类的队列。我们比较了七种已出版的《国际疾病分类第九版》(ICD-9)和《国际疾病和相关健康问题统计分类第十版》(ICD-10)基于代码规则的算法在电子健康记录(EHR)中的表现,以识别特发性炎症性肌病(IIM)病例。方法:我们确定了在多医院学术医疗中心就诊的具有一个或多个ICD-9或ICD-10 IIM代码的患者(2000-2024)。根据2017年EULAR/美国风湿病学会IIM分类标准,从该队列中随机抽取250例病例进行IIM图表审查。评审由两名评审人员执行,并由第三名评审人员裁决。将算法的性能与(1)确定和(2)确定和可能的IIM情况进行了比较。计算阳性预测值(PPV)、特异性、敏感性和阴性预测值。结果:250例病例中,确诊病例87例,疑似病例28例。PPV最高(84%)的算法依赖于住院期间获得的ICD 9/10代码,但排除了≥80%的病例,敏感性为14%。使用间隔≤60天的两个或多个ICD代码获得了第二高的PPV(79%),并确定了82例。间隔30至365天使用两个或更多ICD代码获得第三高的PPV(78%)。这些性能最好的算法包括确定的和可能的IIM情况。结论:几种基于规则的ICD编码算法的ppv范围为77% ~ 84%,但灵敏度较低(14% ~ 63%)。本研究的局限性包括对一些原始算法的修改。未来的算法可能会受益于纳入额外的电子病历数据和自然语言处理方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书