Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26306279›Full record

ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2015

Embracing the Sparse, Noisy, and Interrelated Aspects of Patient Demographics for use in Clinical Medical Record Linkage.

Stephen M Ash, King Ip-Lin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Stephen M AshUniversity of Memphis, Memphis, TN ; ARGO Data, Richardson, TX.
King Ip-LinUniversity of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Duplicate patient records in health information systems have received increased attention in recent time due to regulatory incentives to integrate the healthcare enterprise. Historically, most patient record matching systems have been limited to simple applications of the Fellegi-Sunter theory of record linkage with edit distance based string similarity measurements. String similarity approaches ignore the rich semantic information present by reducing it to a simple syntactic comparison of characters. This work describes an updated approach to building clinical medical record linkage systems, which embraces the unavoidable problems present in real-world patient matching. Using a ground truth dataset of a real patient population, we demonstrate that systems built in this fashion improve recall by 76% with little reduction in precision. This result empirically demonstrates the size of the gap between sophisticated systems and naïve approaches. Additionally, it accentuates the difficulty in estimating the false negative error in this setting as previous research has reported much higher levels of recall, due, in part, to measuring from biased samples.

Identifiers

PMID26306279
PMCPMC4525218

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.