Diagnosis code assignment: models and evaluation metrics
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The volume of healthcare data is growing rapidly with the adoption of health information technology. We focus on automated ICD9 code assignment from discharge summary content and methods for evaluating such assignments. METHODS: We study ICD9 diagnosis codes and discharge summaries from the publicly available Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II (MIMIC II) repository. We experiment with two coding approaches: one that treats each ICD9 code independently of each other (flat classifier), and one that leverages the hierarchical nature of ICD9 codes into its modeling (hierarchy-based classifier). We propose novel evaluation metrics, which reflect the distances among gold-standard and predicted codes and their locations in the ICD9 tree. Experimental setup, code for modeling, and evaluation scripts are made available to the research community. RESULTS: The hierarchy-based classifier outperforms the flat classifier with F-measures of 39.5% and 27.6%, respectively, when trained on 20,533 documents and tested on 2282 documents. While recall is improved at the expense of precision, our novel evaluation metrics show a more refined assessment: for instance, the hierarchy-based classifier identifies the correct sub-tree of gold-standard codes more often than the flat classifier. Error analysis reveals that gold-standard codes are not perfect, and as such the recall and precision are likely underestimated. CONCLUSIONS: Hierarchy-based classification yields better ICD9 coding than flat classification for MIMIC patients. Automated ICD9 coding is an example of a task for which data and tools can be shared and for which the research community can work together to build on shared models and advance the state of the art.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The diagnosis could be inferred from routine EHR data, which could aid with triggering of decision support or clinical trial recruitment.
“This is a proof-of-concept that demonstrates that the diagnosis could be inferred from routine EHR data, which could aid with triggering of decision support68,72 or clinical trial recruitment.”
From Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records (2018) · cites this paper as [68]
The Introduction and Conclusions report automated prediction of ICD9 diagnosis codes from discharge summaries, supporting the inference part of the claim. They do not establish inference from routine EHR data generally or discuss using the predictions to trigger decision support or recruit patients for clinical trials. The copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe micro-F1 score for predicting ICD codes exceeds that shown on the smaller MIMIC-III dataset when predicting fewer diagnoses (0.40 vs 0.28).
“We are not aware of a study that predicts as many ICD codes as this study, but our micro-F1 score exceeds that shown on the smaller MIMIC-III dataset when predicting fewer diagnoses (0.40 vs 0.28).68”
From Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records (2018) · cites this paper as [68]
The Results > Prediction models section reports a 27.6% F-measure for the flat SVM, consistent with the cited 0.28 after rounding. But Materials and methods > Datasets identifies the dataset as MIMIC II, not MIMIC-III; the Results also report a higher 39.5% F-measure for this paper’s hierarchy-based model. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Probing genetic overlap among complex human phenotypes
Rzhetsky, A., Wajngurt, D., Park, N., & Zheng, T. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0704820104 · Cited by 298 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- [1]Cimino JJ Improving the electronic health record—are clinicians getting what they wished for? JAMA 2013; 309: 991– 2 23483171 PMC3858675
- [3]Tsui F-C Wagner MM Dato V Value of ICD-9-coded chief complaints for detection of epidemics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002; 9: S41– 7 PMC2243339 11825278
- [5]Denny JC Ritchie MD Basford MA PheWAS: demonstrating the feasibility of a phenome-wide scan to discover gene-disease associations. Bioinforma Oxf Engl 2010; 26: 1205– 10 PMC2859132 20335276
- [6]Ritchie MD Denny JC Crawford DC Robust replication of genotype-phenotype associations across multiple diseases in an electronic medical record. Am J Hum Genet 2010; 86: 560– 72 20362271 PMC2850440
- [9]Pestian JP Brew C Matykiewicz A shared task involving multi-label classification of clinical free text. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on BioNLP 2007: Biological, Translational, and Clinical Language Processing 2007: 97– 104
- [10]Birman-Deych E Waterman AD Yan Y Accuracy of ICD-9-CM codes for identifying cardiovascular and stroke risk factors. Med Care 2005; 43: 480– 5 15838413
- [11]Hsia DC Krushat WM Fagan AB Accuracy of diagnostic coding for Medicare patients under the prospective-payment system. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 352– 5 3123929
- [12]Farzandipour M Sheikhtaheri A Sadoughi F Effective factors on accuracy of principal diagnosis coding based on International Classification of Diseases, the 10th revision (ICD-10). Int J Inf Manag 2010; 30: 78– 84
- [13]Perotte A Hripcsak G Temporal properties of diagnosis code time series in aggregate. IEEE J Biomed Heal Informatics 2013; 17: 477– 83 PMC4030411 24235118
- [14]Crammer K Dredze M Ganchev K Automatic code assignment to medical text. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on BioNLP 2007: Biological, Translational, and Clinical Language Processing Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2007: 129– 36 http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id =1572392.1572416 (accessed 2 Sep 2013).
- [15]Goldstein I Arzumtsyan A Uzuner O Three approaches to automatic assignment of ICD-9-CM codes to radiology reports. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007; 2007: 279– 83 18693842 PMC2655861
- [16]Farkas R Szarvas G Automatic construction of rule-based ICD-9-CM coding systems. BMC Bioinformatics 2008; 9: S10 18426545 PMC2352868
- [17]Perotte A Bartlett N Elhadad N Hierarchically Supervised Latent Dirichlet Allocation. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2011: 2609– 17
- [19]Ribeiro-Neto B Laender AHF de Lima LRS An experimental study in automatically categorizing medical documents. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2001; 52: 391– 401
- [20]Medori J Fairon C Machine learning and features selection for semi-automatic ICD-9-CM encoding. In: Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Second Louhi Workshop on Text and Data Mining of Health Documents Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2010: 84– 9 http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1867735.1867748 (accessed 2 Sep 2013).
- [21]Pakhomov SVS Buntrock JD Chute CG Automating the assignment of diagnosis codes to patient encounters using example-based and machine learning techniques. J Am Med Informatics Assoc JAMIA 2006; 13: 516– 25 PMC1561792 16799125
- [22]Lita L Yu S Niculescu S Large scale diagnostic code classification for medical patient records. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP'08) 2008
- [23]Zhang Y A Hierarchical Approach to Encoding Medical Concepts for Clinical Notes. In: Proceedings of the ACL-08: HLT Student Research Workshop. Columbus, Ohio: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2008: 67– 72
- [24]Joachims T Text Categorization with Suport Vector Machines: Learning with Many Relevant Features. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Machine Learning London, UK: Springer-Verlag, 1998: 137– 42 http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=645326.649721 (accessed 2 Sep 2013).
- [25]Stanfill MH Williams M Fenton SH A systematic literature review of automated clinical coding and classification systems. J Am Med Informatics Assoc JAMIA 2010; 17: 646– 51 PMC3000748 20962126
- [26]Manning C Raghavan P Schütze H Evaluation in information retrieval. In: Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge University Press, 2008: 151– 75
- [28]Saeed M Villarroel M Reisner AT Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II (MIMIC-II): a public-access intensive care unit database. Crit Care Med 2011; 39: 952– 60 21283005 PMC3124312
- [29]Whetzel PL Noy NF Shah NH BioPortal: enhanced functionality via new web services from the National Center for Biomedical Ontology to access and use ontologies in software applications. Nucleic Acids Res 2011; 39: W541– 5 21672956 PMC3125807
- [30]Harel D Tarjan RE Fast algorithms for finding nearest common ancestors. SIAM J Comput 1984; 13: 338– 55
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records
Rajkomar, A., Oren, E., Chen, K., Dai, A. M., Hajaj, N., Hardt, M., Liu, P. J., Liu, X., Marcus, J., Sun, M., et al. (2018) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-018-0029-1 · Cited by 2,648 · see citing works
“multiple diagnoses), for our model is higher than that reported in the literature in an ICU data-set with fewer diagnoses [44].”
ResultMiotto, R., Li, L., Kidd, B. A., & Dudley, J. T. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep26094 · Cited by 1,710 · see citing works
Kaur, R., Ginige, J. A., & Obst, O. (2023) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118997 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
- Authors
- Perotte, A., Pivovarov, R., Natarajan, K., Weiskopf, N., Wood, F., & Elhadad, N.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital (US)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-03
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 231-237
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC3932472
- OpenAlex
- W2096664202
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 8.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (LM007079, T15LM007079, R01LM010027)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
- Keywords
- discharge summaries, hierarchical classification, evaluation metrics, MIMIC-II, intensive care unit patients, clinical text mining
- MeSH terms
- Brain Ischemia, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Patient Discharge, International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Coding, Support Vector Machine
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