ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2012
Auditing consistency and usefulness of LOINC use among three large institutions - using version spaces for grouping LOINC codes.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Semantic enrichment of Pomeranian health study data using LOINC and WHO-FIC terminology mapping principles.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Ontologizing health systems data at scale: making translational discovery a reality.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- Encoding laboratory testing data: case studies of the national implementation of HHS requirements and related standards in five laboratories.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Article
- Automated mapping of laboratory tests to LOINC codes using noisy labels in a national electronic health record system database.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Article
- The potential adoption benefits and challenges of LOINC codes in a laboratory department: a case study.Health information science and systems · 2017Article
- Inflammation Thread Runs across Medical Laboratory Specialities.Mediators of inflammation · 2016Review
- Next generation phenotyping using the unified medical language system.JMIR medical informatics · 2014Article
- Government leadership in addressing public health priorities: strides and delays in electronic laboratory reporting in the United States.American journal of public health · 2014Article
- Multi-Institutional Sharing of Electronic Health Record Data to Assess Childhood Obesity.PloS one · 2013Article
- Mapping local laboratory interface terms to LOINC at a German university hospital using RELMA V.5: a semi-automated approach.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
- A multi-part matching strategy for mapping LOINC with laboratory terminologies.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
- A corpus-based approach for automated LOINC mapping.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe wanted to develop a method for evaluating the consistency and usefulness of LOINC code use across different institutions, and to evaluate the degree of interoperability that can be attained when using LOINC codes for laboratory data exchange. Our specific goals were to: (1) Determine if any contradictory knowledge exists in LOINC. (2) Determine how many LOINC codes were used in a truly interoperable fashion between systems. (3) Provide suggestions for improving the semantic interoperability of LOINC.
methodsWe collected Extensional Definitions (EDs) of LOINC usage from three institutions. The version space approach was used to divide LOINC codes into small sets, which made auditing of LOINC use across the institutions feasible. We then compared pairings of LOINC codes from the three institutions for consistency and usefulness.
resultsThe number of LOINC codes evaluated were 1917, 1267 and 1693 as obtained from ARUP, Intermountain and Regenstrief respectively. There were 2022, 2030, and 2301 version spaces among ARUP and Intermountain, Intermountain and Regenstrief and ARUP and Regenstrief respectively. Using the EDs as the gold standard, there were 104, 109 and 112 pairs containing contradictory knowledge and there were 1165, 765 and 1121 semantically interoperable pairs. The interoperable pairs were classified into three levels: (1) Level I - No loss of meaning, complete information was exchanged by identical codes. (2) Level II - No loss of meaning, but processing of data was needed to make the data completely comparable. (3) Level III - Some loss of meaning. For example, tests with a specific 'method' could be rolled-up with tests that were 'methodless'.
conclusionsThere are variations in the way LOINC is used for data exchange that result in some data not being truly interoperable across different enterprises. To improve its semantic interoperability, we need to detect and correct any contradictory knowledge within LOINC and add computable relationships that can be used for making reliable inferences about the data. The LOINC committee should also provide detailed guidance on best practices for mapping from local codes to LOINC codes and for using LOINC codes in data exchange.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.