arXiv · 2609.24877
Decomposing Error and Style in Automated Clinical Coding
Abstract
In automated clinical coding, where the label space spans tens of thousands of diagnosis and procedure codes, models are currently evaluated against a single gold annotation, treating any deviation as error. But we find when two teams code the same 110 ACI-Bench encounters, they agree on only 73% of codes (Jaccard similarity) for the same note; even after an independent clinical audit removes erroneous codes, agreement rises only to 77%. Is that gap error or something systematic? We model the systematic component as coding style $ψ$, a coder- or site-specific policy over what to code and how much to document, and recast coding as $p(\mathrm{code}\mid\mathrm{note},ψ)$, estimating $ψ$ with a 10-dimension rubric. If style were noise, conditioning on it would do nothing. Instead, across five datasets a model conditioned with a data-matching style raises ICD F1 by up to 26 points and an extreme mismatched one lowers it by up to 21. Four prompt based coding methods spanning 39-49 F1 converge to 52-56 once style is supplied (All p<0.05). Much of what single-gold evaluation charges to model error is recoverable, unmodeled style.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Han-Chin Shing, Jack Moriarty, Ryan Ware, Afton Marchbanks, Carlyn Canvasser, Stefanie Higgins, Harsh Gupta, Fang Wang, Joseph Paul Cohen. 2026-09-21. Decomposing Error and Style in Automated Clinical Coding. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.24877
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.