ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2017
Use of ontology structure and Bayesian models to aid the crowdsourcing of ICD-11 sanctioning rules.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Documentation of Drug-Related Problems with ICD-11: Application of the New WHO Code-Set to Clinical Routine Data.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- A Bibliometric Analysis of the Development of ICD-11 in Medical Informatics.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is the de facto standard international classification for mortality reporting and for many epidemiological, clinical, and financial use cases. The next version of ICD, ICD-11, will be submitted for approval by the World Health Assembly in 2018. Unlike previous versions of ICD, where coders mostly select single codes from pre-enumerated disease and disorder codes, ICD-11 coding will allow extensive use of multiple codes to give more detailed disease descriptions. For example, "severe malignant neoplasms of left breast" may be coded using the combination of a "stem code" (e.g., code for malignant neoplasms of breast) with a variety of "extension codes" (e.g., codes for laterality and severity). The use of multiple codes (a process called post-coordination), while avoiding the pitfall of having to pre-enumerate vast number of possible disease and qualifier combinations, risks the creation of meaningless expressions that combine stem codes with inappropriate qualifiers. To prevent that from happening, "sanctioning rules" that define legal combinations are necessary. In this work, we developed a crowdsourcing method for obtaining sanctioning rules for the post-coordination of concepts in ICD-11. Our method utilized the hierarchical structures in the domain to improve the accuracy of the sanctioning rules and to lower the crowdsourcing cost. We used Bayesian networks to model crowd workers' skills, the accuracy of their responses, and our confidence in the acquired sanctioning rules. We applied reinforcement learning to develop an agent that constantly adjusted the confidence cutoffs during the crowdsourcing process to maximize the overall quality of sanctioning rules under a fixed budget. Finally, we performed formative evaluations using a skin-disease branch of the draft ICD-11 and demonstrated that the crowd-sourced sanctioning rules replicated those defined by an expert dermatologist with high precision and recall. This work demonstrated that a crowdsourcing approach could offer a reasonably efficient method for generating a first draft of sanctioning rules that subject matter experts could verify and edit, thus relieving them of the tedium and cost of formulating the initial set of rules.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.