ArticleBMC research notes2025
Improving the accuracy and precision of disease identification when utilizing EHR data for research: the case for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in BMC research notes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe assessed the performance of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes to identify patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a large academic health system and determined whether employing an algorithm using a combination of ICD codes could deliver higher accuracy and precision than single ICD codes in identifying HCC cases using electronic health record (EHR) data.
resultsThe use of a single ICD code entry for HCC (ICD-9-CM 155.0 or ICD-10-CM C22.0) in our cohort of 1,007 established ambulatory care patients with potential HCC yielded 58% false positives (not true HCC cases) based on chart reviews. We developed an ICD code-based algorithm that prioritized positive predictive value (PPV), F-score, and accuracy to minimize false positives and negatives. Using manual chart reviews as the gold standard, the highest performing algorithm required at least 10 ICD code entries for HCC and the sum of ICD code entries for HCC to exceed the sum of ICD code entries for non-HCC malignancies. The algorithm demonstrated high performance (PPV 97.4%, F-score 0.92, accuracy 94%), which was internally validated (PPV 92.3%, F-score 0.90, accuracy 91%) using a separate sample of 285 cancer registry cases. Our findings support the need to assess the accuracy and precision of ICD codes before using EHR data to study HCC more broadly.
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.