ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020
Detecting Miscoded Diabetes Diagnosis Codes in Electronic Health Records for Quality Improvement: Temporal Deep Learning Approach.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycaemia in hospitalised adults: A matched cohort study (2013-2023).Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Article
- Identifying Diabetes Related-Complications in a Real-World Free-Text Electronic Medical Records in Hebrew Using Natural Language Processing Techniques.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025Article
- Article
- Developing an LSTM Model to Identify Surgical Site Infections using Electronic Healthcare Records.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiabetes affects more than 30 million patients across the United States. With such a large disease burden, even a small error in classification can be significant. Currently billing codes, assigned at the time of a medical encounter, are the "gold standard" reflecting the actual diseases present in an individual, and thus in aggregate reflect disease prevalence in the population. These codes are generated by highly trained coders and by health care providers but are not always accurate.
objectiveThis work provides a scalable deep learning methodology to more accurately classify individuals with diabetes across multiple health care systems.
methodsWe leveraged a long short-term memory-dense neural network (LSTM-DNN) model to identify patients with or without diabetes using data from 5 acute care facilities with 187,187 patients and 275,407 encounters, incorporating data elements including laboratory test results, diagnostic/procedure codes, medications, demographic data, and admission information. Furthermore, a blinded physician panel reviewed discordant cases, providing an estimate of the total impact on the population.
resultsWhen predicting the documented diagnosis of diabetes, our model achieved an 84% F1 score, 96% area under the curve-receiver operating characteristic curve, and 91% average precision on a heterogeneous data set from 5 distinct health facilities. However, in 81% of cases where the model disagreed with the documented phenotype, a blinded physician panel agreed with the model. Taken together, this suggests that 4.3% of our studied population have either missing or improper diabetes diagnosis.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that deep learning methods can improve clinical phenotyping even when patient data are noisy, sparse, and heterogeneous.
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.