Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21986292›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2011

Probabilistic techniques for obtaining accurate patient counts in Clinical Data Warehouses.

Risa B Myers, Jorge R Herskovic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Comparative Merits of Available Mortality Data Sources for Clinical Research.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2023
    Article
  2. Measuring Mortality Information in Clinical Data Warehouses.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2015
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Patient perceptions on the subject of medical research.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Risa B MyersUniversity of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX 77030, USA; UTHealth School of Biomedical Informatics, 7000 Fannin St., Houston, TX 77030, USA; Rice University, 6100 Main St., Houston, TX 77005, USA. Electronic address: RisaMyers@rice.edu.
Jorge R HerskovicUniversity of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: Jorge.R.Herskovic@uth.tmc.edu.

Funding

U OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON CENTER FOR CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1RR024148 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MCPHERSON, DAVID D · 2006 to 2010
$27.9M
Concept-Level Methods for Comparative Effectiveness ResearchRC1RR028254 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI BERNSTAM, ELMER V. · 2009 to 2010
$952k
CCR NIH HHS 1RC1RR028254NCRR NIH HHS 3UL1RR024148NCRR NIH HHS RC1 RR028254NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024148
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proposal and execution of clinical trials, computation of quality measures and discovery of correlation between medical phenomena are all applications where an accurate count of patients is needed. However, existing sources of this type of patient information, including Clinical Data Warehouses (CDWs) may be incomplete or inaccurate. This research explores applying probabilistic techniques, supported by the MayBMS probabilistic database, to obtain accurate patient counts from a Clinical Data Warehouse containing synthetic patient data. We present a synthetic Clinical Data Warehouse, and populate it with simulated data using a custom patient data generation engine. We then implement, evaluate and compare different techniques for obtaining patients counts. We model billing as a test for the presence of a condition. We compute billing's sensitivity and specificity both by conducting a "Simulated Expert Review" where a representative sample of records are reviewed and labeled by experts, and by obtaining the ground truth for every record. We compute the posterior probability of a patient having a condition through a "Bayesian Chain", using Bayes' Theorem to calculate the probability of a patient having a condition after each visit. The second method is a "one-shot" approach that computes the probability of a patient having a condition based on whether the patient is ever billed for the condition. Our results demonstrate the utility of probabilistic approaches, which improve on the accuracy of raw counts. In particular, the simulated review paired with a single application of Bayes' Theorem produces the best results, with an average error rate of 2.1% compared to 43.7% for the straightforward billing counts. Overall, this research demonstrates that Bayesian probabilistic approaches improve patient counts on simulated patient populations. We believe that total patient counts based on billing data are one of the many possible applications of our Bayesian framework. Use of these probabilistic techniques will enable more accurate patient counts and better results for applications requiring this metric.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremDatabases, FactualElectronic Health RecordsHumansPatients

Identifiers

PMID21986292
PMCPMC3251720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.