Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28943779›Full record

ArticleHealth services & outcomes research methodology2017

Accounting for misclassification in electronic health records-derived exposures using generalized linear finite mixture models.

Rebecca A Hubbard, Eric Johnson, Jessica Chubak, Karen J Wernli, Aruna Kamineni, Andy Bogart, Carolyn M Rutter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services & outcomes research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Rebecca A HubbardDepartment of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Rebecca A. Hubbard); Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington (Eric Johnson, Jessica Chubak, Karen J. Wernli, Aruna Kamineni); Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (Jessica Chubak); RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California (Andy Bogart, Carolyn M. Rutter).
Eric JohnsonDepartment of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Rebecca A. Hubbard); Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington (Eric Johnson, Jessica Chubak, Karen J. Wernli, Aruna Kamineni); Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (Jessica Chubak); RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California (Andy Bogart, Carolyn M. Rutter).
Jessica ChubakDepartment of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Rebecca A. Hubbard); Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington (Eric Johnson, Jessica Chubak, Karen J. Wernli, Aruna Kamineni); Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (Jessica Chubak); RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California (Andy Bogart, Carolyn M. Rutter).
Karen J WernliDepartment of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Rebecca A. Hubbard); Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington (Eric Johnson, Jessica Chubak, Karen J. Wernli, Aruna Kamineni); Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (Jessica Chubak); RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California (Andy Bogart, Carolyn M. Rutter).
Aruna KamineniDepartment of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Rebecca A. Hubbard); Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington (Eric Johnson, Jessica Chubak, Karen J. Wernli, Aruna Kamineni); Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (Jessica Chubak); RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California (Andy Bogart, Carolyn M. Rutter).
Andy BogartDepartment of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Rebecca A. Hubbard); Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington (Eric Johnson, Jessica Chubak, Karen J. Wernli, Aruna Kamineni); Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (Jessica Chubak); RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California (Andy Bogart, Carolyn M. Rutter).
Carolyn M RutterDepartment of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Rebecca A. Hubbard); Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington (Eric Johnson, Jessica Chubak, Karen J. Wernli, Aruna Kamineni); Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (Jessica Chubak); RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California (Andy Bogart, Carolyn M. Rutter).

Funding

Studying Colorectal Cancer Effectiveness of Screening Strategies (SuCCESS)U54CA163261 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI CHUBAK, JESSICA · 2011 to 2017
$7.3M
Modeling Effective Health Policies for Colorectal CancerU01CA152959 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI KUNTZ, KAREN M, LANSDORP-VOGELAAR, IRIS · 2010 to 2014
$5.4M
SURVEILLANCE EPIDEMIOLOGY &END RESULTS PROGRAMN01CN067009 · CN · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI THOMAS, DAVID B · 1996 to 1997
–
NCI NIH HHS N01 CN067009NCI NIH HHS N01 PC035142NCI NIH HHS U01 CA152959NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163261
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exposures derived from electronic health records (EHR) may be misclassified, leading to biased estimates of their association with outcomes of interest. An example of this problem arises in the context of cancer screening where test indication, the purpose for which a test was performed, is often unavailable. This poses a challenge to understanding the effectiveness of screening tests because estimates of screening test effectiveness are biased if some diagnostic tests are misclassified as screening. Prediction models have been developed for a variety of exposure variables that can be derived from EHR, but no previous research has investigated appropriate methods for obtaining unbiased association estimates using these predicted probabilities. The full likelihood incorporating information on both the predicted probability of exposure-class membership and the association between the exposure and outcome of interest can be expressed using a finite mixture model. When the regression model of interest is a generalized linear model (GLM), the expectation-maximization algorithm can be used to estimate the parameters using standard software for GLMs. Using simulation studies, we compared the bias and efficiency of this mixture model approach to alternative approaches including multiple imputation and dichotomization of the predicted probabilities to create a proxy for the missing predictor. The mixture model was the only approach that was unbiased across all scenarios investigated. Finally, we explored the performance of these alternatives in a study of colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy. These findings have broad applicability in studies using EHR data where gold-standard exposures are unavailable and prediction models have been developed for estimating proxies.

Indexed as

Colorectal cancerElectronic health recordsMixture modelMultiple imputationScreening

Identifiers

PMID28943779
PMCPMC5608281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.