Back

Validation of 13,102 ICD-10-CM Codes Using a Large Language Model-Based System

Wang, Y.; Song, Y.; Siu, R.; Nimma, I. R.; Yan, Y.; Savage, T. R.; Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Ramai, D.; Wang, J.; Badurdeen, D.; Tao, C.; Kumbhari, V.; Huang, Y.

2025-12-31 health informatics
10.64898/2025.12.30.25343244 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo comprehensively evaluate the validity of ICD-10-CM codes for both prevalent diagnoses and less common diseases, and to assess the performance of a large language model (LLM)-based system in validating these codes. Materials and MethodsThis retrospective study analyzed hospital admissions from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-IV) database. We developed a validated LLM-based system using GPT-4o, refined through iterative prompt engineering, to assess ICD-10-CM code validity. We measured the PPV of ICD-10-CM codes, PPV of principal and secondary diagnoses, and the performance of an LLM-based system in code validation. ResultsAmong 865,079 assigned codes, the PPV was 84.6% (95% CI, 84.5%-84.6%). Principal diagnoses had a PPV of 93.9% (95% CI, 93.7%-94.1%), while secondary diagnoses had a PPV of 83.8% (95% CI, 83.7%-83.9%). The LLM system demonstrated high performance in validating ICD codes, achieving 93.6% accuracy, 95.4% sensitivity and 85.2% specificity. Among correctly assigned secondary diagnoses, the majority (67.9%) represented historical or baseline conditions, while 32.1% reflected active conditions that deviated from baseline status; 22.3% of these emerged after hospital admission. PPV decreases with later diagnosis positions, with the largest decline occurring between principal and secondary diagnoses. Discussion and ConclusionIn this large-scale evaluation, ICD-10-CM codes exhibited generally high accuracy, though variability existed by position and condition type. A validated LLM system performed comparably to physician review and offers a scalable means to improve coding accuracy. These findings support the potential for integrating LLM-based auditing into routine workflows to strengthen the quality of administrative and research data.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.