Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30395248›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2018

Effect of vocabulary mapping for conditions on phenotype cohorts.

George Hripcsak, Matthew E Levine, Ning Shang, Patrick B Ryan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. GWAS for Periodontitis Phenotypes Using Multi-Ancestry All of Us Research Platform.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Leveraging SNOMED CT for patient cohort identification over heterogeneous EHR data.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evaluating MedDRA-to-ICD terminology mappings.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Phenotyping in distributed data networks: selecting the right codes for the right patients.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

George HripcsakDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Matthew E LevineDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Ning ShangDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Patrick B RyanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

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
NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG008680NLM NIH HHS R01 LM006910
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To study the effect on patient cohorts of mapping condition (diagnosis) codes from source billing vocabularies to a clinical vocabulary. Materials and Methods: Nine International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD9-CM) concept sets were extracted from eMERGE network phenotypes, translated to Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine - Clinical Terms concept sets, and applied to patient data that were mapped from source ICD9-CM and ICD10-CM codes to Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine - Clinical Terms codes using Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) vocabulary mappings. The original ICD9-CM concept set and a concept set extended to ICD10-CM were used to create patient cohorts that served as gold standards. Results: Four phenotype concept sets were able to be translated to Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine - Clinical Terms without ambiguities and were able to perform perfectly with respect to the gold standards. The other 5 lost performance when 2 or more ICD9-CM or ICD10-CM codes mapped to the same Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine - Clinical Terms code. The patient cohorts had a total error (false positive and false negative) of up to 0.15% compared to querying ICD9-CM source data and up to 0.26% compared to querying ICD9-CM and ICD10-CM data. Knowledge engineering was required to produce that performance; simple automated methods to generate concept sets had errors up to 10% (one outlier at 250%). Discussion: The translation of data from source vocabularies to Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine - Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) resulted in very small error rates that were an order of magnitude smaller than other error sources. Conclusion: It appears possible to map diagnoses from disparate vocabularies to a single clinical vocabulary and carry out research using a single set of definitions, thus improving efficiency and transportability of research.

Indexed as

International Classification of DiseasesSystematized Nomenclature of MedicineHumansObservational Studies as TopicVocabulary, Controlled

Identifiers

PMID30395248
PMCPMC6289550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.