Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22549152›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2012

Mining electronic health records: towards better research applications and clinical care.

Peter B Jensen, Lars J Jensen, Søren Brunak

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 593 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
593citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

593 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Integrated Clinicogenomic Risk Modeling for Metachronous Second Primary Cancers.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article

533 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Peter B JensenNNF Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lars J Jensen
Søren Brunak

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical data describing the phenotypes and treatment of patients represents an underused data source that has much greater research potential than is currently realized. Mining of electronic health records (EHRs) has the potential for establishing new patient-stratification principles and for revealing unknown disease correlations. Integrating EHR data with genetic data will also give a finer understanding of genotype-phenotype relationships. However, a broad range of ethical, legal and technical reasons currently hinder the systematic deposition of these data in EHRs and their mining. Here, we consider the potential for furthering medical research and clinical care using EHR data and the challenges that must be overcome before this is a reality.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchElectronic Health RecordsGenetic Association StudiesHumansInformation DisseminationMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedPatient CarePrimary Health CarePublic Health

Identifiers

PMID22549152

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.