Adjudicating evolving inpatient diagnoses with a clinical coding agent: a retrospective multicentre study
Li, Y.; Shi, Y.; Sun, Y.; Suo, T.; Wang, P.; Zhang, Z.; Xian, J.; Gu, L.; Ma, W.; Gu, J.; Fan, J.
Show abstract
Background International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes are widely used for reimbursement, health-service planning, and disease surveillance. Automated systems can identify diagnoses and supporting evidence across clinical documents. Yet coding is more than finding diagnoses. Decisions based on isolated information may not fully reflect the evolving clinical picture during admission. Provisional, superseded, or conflicting diagnoses can therefore persist in the final code set, complicating review and correction. We therefore developed and evaluated Clinico, a coding agent that organises evidence by time and clinical relationships to adjudicate diagnoses and update their status during admission. Methods We did a retrospective multicentre study with internal and external validation using inpatient records from two Shanghai hospitals. Routine coder-finalised codes served as references. Using 5,000 development stays, we refined Clinico's prompts and workflow without fine-tuning model parameters. We compared Clinico with three prespecified comparators, two trained on 80,340 stays. Clinico maintained an evidence-linked diagnostic ledger across each admission and reconciled related or conflicting claims before finalising the code set and selecting the principal diagnosis. The primary outcome was principal-diagnosis exact-match agreement; complete code-set micro-F1 was the key secondary outcome. Findings Evaluation included 5,000 internal and 4,109 external test stays. Principal-diagnosis exact-match agreement was 83.6% (95% CI 82.6-84.6) internally and 52.0% (50.5-53.5) externally; the next-highest observed estimates were 74.7% and 31.5%. Complete code-set micro-F1 was 90.6% (95% CI 90.2-91.0) internally and 42.6% (42.0-43.2) externally; the next-highest observed estimates were 90.3% and 25.5%. Interpretation In both hospital test sets, Clinico had the highest observed estimates of principal-diagnosis agreement and complete code-set micro-F1 among evaluated methods. Its longitudinal adjudication process links decisions to source evidence, allowing them to be checked against the record. Prospective studies should assess its effects in clinical workflows using independently adjudicated references. Funding None.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessing the quality of clinical and administrative data extracted from hospitals: The General Medicine Inpatient Initiative (GEMINI) experience 94%
- Validation of a Derived International Patient Severity Algorithm to Support COVID-19 Analytics from Electronic Health Record Data 93%
- Use of unstructured text in prognostic clinical prediction models: a systematic review 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Decision Support in Cardiovascular Medicine: Effectiveness, Implementation Barriers, and Regulation 90%
- Features of 16,749 hospitalised UK patients with COVID-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol 90%
- Post-discharge Acute Care and Outcomes in the Era of Readmission Reduction: A National Retrospective Cohort Study of Medicare Beneficiaries in the United States 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Can we trust the prediction model? Demonstrating the importance of external validation by investigating the COVID-19 Vulnerability (C-19) Index across an international network of observational healthcare datasets 93%
- Developing and Evaluating Mappings of ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM Codes to PheCodes 92%
- Is the quality of hospital EHR data sufficient to evidence its ICHOM outcomes performance in heart failure? A pilot evaluation 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Remote Covid Assessment in Primary Care (RECAP) risk prediction tool: derivation and real-world validation studies 92%
- Automated and partially-automated contact tracing: a rapid systematic review to inform the control of COVID-19 91%
- An external validation of the QCovid risk prediction algorithm for risk of mortality from COVID-19 in adults: national validation cohort study in England 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- International Electronic Health Record-Derived COVID-19 Clinical Course Profiles: The 4CE Consortium 92%
- A Framework to Assess Clinical Safety and Hallucination Rates of LLMs for Medical Text Summarisation 91%
- Adoption of the OMOP CDM for Cancer Research using Real-world Data: Current Status and Opportunities 91%
"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.