Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Managing Map Cardinality in Automatic Disease Classification Mapping: Balancing Precision, Recall and Coverage

Santosh Purja Pun, Oliver Obst, Jim Basilakis, Jeewani Anupama GinigePublished Jun 29, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.

Automatic mapping between disease classification systems, such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), is a challenging yet essential task for integrating health data and conducting longitudinal data analysis. Existing embedding-based methods primarily focus on \emph{one-to-one} mappings, overlooking more complex \emph{one-to-many} scenarios. The threshold-based and top-K methods offer natural extensions; however, they involve inherent trade-offs between \emph{precision}, \emph{recall} and \emph{mapping coverage} -- the proportion of source codes with at least one mapping to a target code. To address this challenge, we introduce a novel method, which is inspired by the \emph{blocking-and-matching} pipeline commonly used in \emph{entity resolution}. In particular, we first generate a block of candidate matches (\emph{blocking}) and then employ a large language model (LLM) to identify all valid mappings within each block (\emph{matching}). Empirically, we show that the proposed method achieves higher precision with comparable recall and broader coverage across multiple ICD version pairs (ICD-9-CM$\leftrightarrow$ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-AM$\leftrightarrow$ICD-11). Our source code and dataset is available at: https://tinyurl.com/46kyn7wp.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: hot
Automatic mapping between disease classification systems, such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), is a challenging yet essential task for integrating health data and conducting longitudinal data analysis.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Aug 25, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Tasks

None detected

Methods

Transformer

Domains

Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.