Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25954394›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2014

p-medicine: A Medical Informatics Platform for Integrated Large Scale Heterogeneous Patient Data.

J Marés, L Shamardin, G Weiler, A Anguita, S Sfakianakis, E Neri, S J Zasada, N Graf, P V Coveney

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Clinical Data Warehousing: A Scoping Review.Journal of the Society for Clinical Data Management · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Big data from clinical routine].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2018
    Review
  5. Workflow-driven clinical decision support for personalized oncology.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016
    Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

J MarésUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.
L ShamardinUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.
G WeilerFraunhofer Institute for Biomedical Engineering, St. Ingbert, Germany.
A AnguitaUniversidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
S SfakianakisICS-FORTH, Heraklion, Greece.
E NeriCustodix, Sint-Martens-Latem, Belgium.
S J ZasadaUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.
N GrafUniversity of Saarland, Saarland, Germany.
P V CoveneyUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Secure access to patient data is becoming of increasing importance, as medical informatics grows in significance, to both assist with population health studies, and patient specific medicine in support of treatment. However, assembling the many different types of data emanating from the clinic is in itself a difficulty, and doing so across national borders compounds the problem. In this paper we present our solution: an easy to use distributed informatics platform embedding a state of the art data warehouse incorporating a secure pseudonymisation system protecting access to personal healthcare data. Using this system, a whole range of patient derived data, from genomics to imaging to clinical records, can be assembled and linked, and then connected with analytics tools that help us to understand the data. Research performed in this environment will have immediate clinical impact for personalised patient healthcare.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityDatasets as TopicInformation SystemsSoftwareElectronic Health RecordsHumansMedical Informatics

Identifiers

PMID25954394
PMCPMC4419910

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.