ArticleBioData mining2015
The effects of electronic medical record phenotyping details on genetic association studies: HDL-C as a case study.
Article in BioData mining, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of multi-population polygenic risk scores for lipid traits in African Americans.PeerJ · 2023Article
- Ensuring electronic medical record simulation through better training, modeling, and evaluation.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Article
- Secondary Use and Analysis of Big Data Collected for Patient Care.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2017Review
- Longitudinal SNP-set association analysis of quantitative phenotypes.Genetic epidemiology · 2017Article
- Clinical Research Informatics Contributions from 2015.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2016Article
- THE CHALLENGES IN USING ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS FOR PHARMACOGENOMICS AND PRECISION MEDICINE RESEARCH.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2016Article
- Advances in the Study of the Antiatherogenic Function and Novel Therapies for HDL.International journal of molecular sciences · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBiorepositories linked to de-identified electronic medical records (EMRs) have the potential to complement traditional epidemiologic studies in genotype-phenotype studies of complex human diseases and traits. A major challenge in meeting this potential is the use of EMR-derived data to extract phenotypes and covariates for genetic association studies. Unlike traditional epidemiologic data, EMR-derived data are collected for clinical care and are therefore highly variable across patients. The variability of clinical data coupled with the challenges associated with searching unstructured clinical notes requires the development of algorithms to extract phenotypes for analysis. Given the number of possible algorithms that could be developed for any one EMR-derived phenotype, we explored here the impact algorithm decision logic has on genetic association study results for a single quantitative trait, high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C).
resultsWe used five different algorithms to extract HDL-C from African American subjects genotyped on the Illumina Metabochip (n = 11,519) as part of Epidemiologic Architecture for Genes Linked to Environment (EAGLE). Tests of association between HDL-C and genetic risk scores for HDL-C associated variants suggest that the genetic effect size does not vary substantially across the five HDL-C definitions.
conclusionsThese data collectively suggest that, at least for this quantitative trait, algorithm decision logic and phenotyping details do not appreciably impact genetic association study test statistics.
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.