ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2015
Learning from the crowd while mapping to LOINC.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harmonizing Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) Codes and Units in Real-World Oncology Data: Method Development and Evaluation.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Semantic enrichment of Pomeranian health study data using LOINC and WHO-FIC terminology mapping principles.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Interactive Machine Learning for Laboratory Data Integration.Studies in health technology and informatics · 2019Article
- Article
- Report on the Project for Establishment of the Standardized Korean Laboratory Terminology Database, 2015.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017Article
- Using Nonexperts for Annotating Pharmacokinetic Drug-Drug Interaction Mentions in Product Labeling: A Feasibility Study.JMIR research protocols · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the perspectives of Regenstrief LOINC Mapping Assistant (RELMA) users before and after the deployment of Community Mapping features, characterize the usage of these new features, and analyze the quality of mappings submitted to the community mapping repository.
methodsWe evaluated Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) community members' perceptions about new "wisdom of the crowd" information and how they used the new RELMA features. We conducted a pre-launch survey to capture users' perceptions of the proposed functionality of these new features; monitored how the new features and data available via those features were accessed; conducted a follow-up survey about the use of RELMA with the Community Mapping features; and analyzed community mappings using automated methods to detect potential errors.
resultsDespite general satisfaction with RELMA, nearly 80% of 155 respondents to our pre-launch survey indicated that having information on how often other users had mapped to a particular LOINC term would be helpful. During the study period, 200 participants logged into the RELMA Community Mapping features an average of 610 times per month and viewed the mapping detail pages a total of 6686 times. Fifty respondents (25%) completed our post-launch survey, and those who accessed the Community Mapping features unanimously indicated that they were useful. Overall, 95.3% of the submitted mappings passed our automated validation checks.
conclusionWhen information about other institutions' mappings was made available, study participants who accessed it agreed that it was useful and informed their mapping choices. Our findings suggest that a crowd-sourced repository of mappings is valuable to users who are mapping local terms to LOINC terms.
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.