ArticleClinical epidemiology2025
Data-Driven Algorithms for Classification of In- and Outpatients in the Danish National Patient Register.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pediatric Intensive Care Utilization and Outcomes in Denmark.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Classification of Inpatient and Outpatient Contacts in the Danish National Patient Register: Epidemiological Implications and Future Directions.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Pediatric Somatic and Psychiatric Hospital Contacts in Denmark: A National Overview of Risk Factors, Admissions, and Mortality.Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The Danish National Patient Register (DNPR) is an important data source for research providing detailed information on all hospital contacts in Denmark. With the transition from the second version of the DNPR (DNPR2) to the third version (DNPR3) in early 2019, the patient type variable (inpatient, elective outpatient, acute outpatient) was removed. This study proposes and evaluates algorithms to classify hospital contacts into these categories in DNPR3, aiming for consensus in data interpretation for researchers using Danish registries. Patients and Methods: We analyzed somatic public hospital contacts in Denmark from 2017 to 2020, with 20,882,018 unique contacts in DNPR2 and 27,694,584 in DNPR3. Several classification algorithms were developed and assessed, including department-based, contact-based, and hybrid methods, to infer patient types in DNPR3 based on contact features, such as duration and admission type. In DNPR3, where the true patient type is unknown, proxy labels were used to train classification algorithms. Results: Compared to the true patient type variable in DNPR2, our department-based classifier showed high positive predictive values (PPVs) and sensitivities in DNPR2 with PPVs ranging from 95.6 to 99.5 and sensitivities ranging from 94.1 to 99.6 across patient types. The hybrid approach showed improved PPVs and sensitivities for acute (PPV = 97.3, sensitivity = 96.8) and elective (PPV = 99.8, sensitivity = 99.9) outpatients. In both DNPR2 and DNPR3 high agreement between contact-based classification algorithms was obtained indicating robustness in our classification methods which suggests the presence of inherent patterns in the data. Conclusion: Our study shows that all presented classification methods are suitable for categorizing patient types in DNPR2 depending on the available data and furthermore demonstrated robustness, supporting their suitability for classification in DNPR3. Future research should explore advanced techniques and comprehensive department classification for enhanced accuracy and applicability.
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.