Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29369797›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2018

Estimating summary statistics for electronic health record laboratory data for use in high-throughput phenotyping algorithms.

D J Albers, N Elhadad, J Claassen, R Perotte, A Goldstein, G Hripcsak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Enhancing diagnostic precision for rare diseases using case-based reasoning.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Evaluating Large Language Models in Extracting Cognitive Exam Dates and Scores.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Predicting individual physiologically acceptable states at discharge from a pediatric intensive care unit.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

D J AlbersDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, 622 West 168th Street, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: dja2119@cumc.columbia.edu.
N ElhadadDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, 622 West 168th Street, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: ne60@cumc.columbia.edu.
J ClaassenDepartment of Neurology, Columbia University, 710 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA. Electronic address: jc1439@cumc.columbia.edu.
R PerotteValue Institute, New York Presbyterian Hospital, 601 West 168th Street New York, NY 10032, USA. Electronic address: rip7002@nyp.org.
A GoldsteinDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, 622 West 168th Street, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: ag3304@cumc.columbia.edu.
G HripcsakDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, 622 West 168th Street, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: gh13@cumc.columbia.edu.

Funding

Training in Biomedical Informatics at Columbia UniversityT15LM007079 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI NOEMIE ELHADAD, GEORGE M HRIPCSAK · 1992 to 2026
$28.9M
OMOP information model for eMERGE phenotypingU01HG008680 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Wendy K Chung, GEORGE M HRIPCSAK · 2015 to 2026
$13.3M
DISCOVERING AND APPLYING KNOWLEDGE IN CLINICAL DATABASESR01LM006910 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI HRIPCSAK, GEORGE M · 2000 to 2023
$10.6M
Mechanistic Machine LearningR01LM012734 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI ALBERS, DAVID J., GLUCKMAN, BRUCE J · 2017 to 2019
$2.0M
NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG008680NLM NIH HHS R01 LM006910NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012734NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We study the question of how to represent or summarize raw laboratory data taken from an electronic health record (EHR) using parametric model selection to reduce or cope with biases induced through clinical care. It has been previously demonstrated that the health care process (Hripcsak and Albers, 2012, 2013), as defined by measurement context (Hripcsak and Albers, 2013; Albers et al., 2012) and measurement patterns (Albers and Hripcsak, 2010, 2012), can influence how EHR data are distributed statistically (Kohane and Weber, 2013; Pivovarov et al., 2014). We construct an algorithm, PopKLD, which is based on information criterion model selection (Burnham and Anderson, 2002; Claeskens and Hjort, 2008), is intended to reduce and cope with health care process biases and to produce an intuitively understandable continuous summary. The PopKLD algorithm can be automated and is designed to be applicable in high-throughput settings; for example, the output of the PopKLD algorithm can be used as input for phenotyping algorithms. Moreover, we develop the PopKLD-CAT algorithm that transforms the continuous PopKLD summary into a categorical summary useful for applications that require categorical data such as topic modeling. We evaluate our methodology in two ways. First, we apply the method to laboratory data collected in two different health care contexts, primary versus intensive care. We show that the PopKLD preserves known physiologic features in the data that are lost when summarizing the data using more common laboratory data summaries such as mean and standard deviation. Second, for three disease-laboratory measurement pairs, we perform a phenotyping task: we use the PopKLD and PopKLD-CAT algorithms to define high and low values of the laboratory variable that are used for defining a disease state. We then compare the relationship between the PopKLD-CAT summary disease predictions and the same predictions using empirically estimated mean and standard deviation to a gold standard generated by clinical review of patient records. We find that the PopKLD laboratory data summary is substantially better at predicting disease state. The PopKLD or PopKLD-CAT algorithms are not meant to be used as phenotyping algorithms, but we use the phenotyping task to show what information can be gained when using a more informative laboratory data summary. In the process of evaluation our method we show that the different clinical contexts and laboratory measurements necessitate different statistical summaries. Similarly, leveraging the principle of maximum entropy we argue that while some laboratory data only have sufficient information to estimate a mean and standard deviation, other laboratory data captured in an EHR contain substantially more information than can be captured in higher-parameter models.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsClinical Laboratory TechniquesData MiningElectronic Health RecordsHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHumansModels, StatisticalPhenotypeElectronic health recordKullback-Leibler divergenceLaboratory testsphenotypingSummary statistic

Identifiers

PMID29369797
PMCPMC5856130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.