Retrospective study evaluates ICD-10-CM code validity in hospital admissions, suggesting LLM can enhance accuracy.
Objectives To comprehensively evaluate the validity of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (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 Methods This retrospective study analyzed hospital admissions from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (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 positive predictive value (PPV) of ICD-10-CM codes, PPV of principal and secondary diagnoses, and the performance of an LLM-based system in code validation. Results Among 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 Conclusion In 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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: