Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25123720›Full record

ReviewYearbook of medical informatics2014

Technical challenges for big data in biomedicine and health: data sources, infrastructure, and analytics.

N Peek, J H Holmes, J Sun

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

N PeekNiels Peek, Centre for Health Informatics, The University of Manchester, Vaughan House, Portsmouth Street, Manchester M13 9GB, United Kingdom, E-mail: niels.peek@manchester.ac.uk.
J H Holmes
J Sun

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo review technical and methodological challenges for big data research in biomedicine and health.

methodsWe discuss sources of big datasets, survey infrastructures for big data storage and big data processing, and describe the main challenges that arise when analyzing big data.

resultsThe life and biomedical sciences are massively contributing to the big data revolution through secondary use of data that were collected during routine care and through new data sources such as social media. Efficient processing of big datasets is typically achieved by distributing computation over a cluster of computers. Data analysts should be aware of pitfalls related to big data such as bias in routine care data and the risk of false-positive findings in high-dimensional datasets.

conclusionsThe major challenge for the near future is to transform analytical methods that are used in the biomedical and health domain, to fit the distributed storage and processing model that is required to handle big data, while ensuring confidentiality of the data being analyzed.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualData MiningElectronic Health RecordsMedical InformaticsComputational BiologyConfidentialityHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalSocial MediaBig Datadistributed computingelectronic health recordsstatistical analysis

Identifiers

PMID25123720
PMCPMC4287098

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.