Cited by 15Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and ProtectionPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsElectronic Health Records Systems

Utility of a Computerized ICD-10 Algorithm to Identify Idiosyncratic Drug-Induced Liver Injury Cases in the Electronic Medical Record

Open access
Yeboah-Korang, Amoah, Louissaint, Jeremy, Tsung, Irene, Prabhu, Sharmila, Fontana, Robert J.·2020·Drug Safety

Abstract

Introduction Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is an important cause of liver injury that is difficult to diagnose and identify in the electronic medical record (EMR).Objective Our objective was to develop a computerized algorithm that can reliably identify DILI cases from the EMR.Methods The EMR was searched for all encounters with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) T code for drug toxicity and a K-71 code for toxic liver injury between 1 October 2015 and 30 September 2018. Clinically significant liver injury was defined using predetermined laboratory values. An expert opinion causality score (1-3 = probable DILI, 4/5 = non-DILI), Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) score, and severity score was assigned to each case.Results Among the 1,211,787 encounters searched, 517 had both an ICD-10 T code and a K-71 code, with 257 patients meeting the laboratory criteria. After excluding 75 cases of acetaminophen hepatotoxicity, the final study sample included 182 cases of potential DILI, with antineoplastics and antibiotics being the most frequently implicated agents. Causality assessment identified probable DILI in 121 patients (66.5%), whereas 61 (33.5%) had an alternative cause of liver injury. Although age, sex, race, and suspect drugs were similar, the probable DILI cases were more likely to present with a hepatocellular injury profile and have more severe liver injury than the non-DILI cases (p < 0.05).Conclusion A computerized algorithm based on a combination of ICD-10 codes identified 182 potential DILI cases with 121 true positives, 61 false positives, and a positive predictive value of 66.5%. Future studies incorporating natural language processing may further improve the utility of this algorithm in identifying high-causality idiosyncratic DILI cases.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40264-019-00903-5

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yeboah-Korang, A., Louissaint, J., Tsung, I., Prabhu, S., & Fontana, R. J.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Fontana, Robert J.
Venue
Drug Safety
Published
2020-01-08
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
371-377
ISSN
  • 0114-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-1942
OpenAlex
W2999821767
Cited by
15
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Drug Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (T32DK062708)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury, computerized algorithm, ICD-10 codes, electronic health records, RUCAM score, causality assessment, hepatotoxicity, anticancer agents, antibiotics, hepatocyte injury, positive predictive value, natural language processing
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Hospitalization, Humans, Liver Function Tests, Severity of Illness Index, United States, Databases, Factual, International Classification of Diseases, Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review