Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24488512›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2014

Invited commentary: Observational research in the age of the electronic health record.

Christopher G Chute

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Measuring Multimorbidity: A Risky Business.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Learning statistical models of phenotypes using noisy labeled training data.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Christopher G Chute

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historically, clinical epidemiologic research has been constrained by the costs and time associated with manually identifying cases and abstracting clinical data. In this issue, Carrell et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179(6);749-758) report on their impressive success using natural language processing techniques to correctly identify cases of cancer recurrence among women with previous breast cancer. They report a 10-fold decrease in the need for chart abstraction, though with an 8% loss in case detection. This commentary outlines some recent history associated with the development of "high-throughput clinical phenotyping" of electronic health records and speculates on the impact such computational capabilities may have for observational research and patient consent.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingBreast NeoplasmsElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, Localclinical case retrievalelectronic medical recordshigh-throughput clinical phenotypingnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID24488512

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.