Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30912749›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

Genomic Common Data Model for Seamless Interoperation of Biomedical Data in Clinical Practice: Retrospective Study.

Seo Jeong Shin, Seng Chan You, Yu Rang Park, Jin Roh, Jang-Hee Kim, Seokjin Haam, Christian G Reich, Clair Blacketer, Dae-Soon Son, Seungbin Oh and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. LeafAI: query generator for clinical cohort discovery rivaling a human programmer.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Seo Jeong Shin *Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ajou University Graduate School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-0861-3576
Seng Chan You *Department of Biomedical Informatics, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-5052-6399
Yu Rang Park *Department of Biomedical Systems Informatics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4210-2094
Jin RohDepartment of Pathology, Ajou University Hospital, Suwon, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3995-355X
Jang-Hee KimDepartment of Pathology, Ajou University Hospital, Suwon, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5825-1361
Seokjin HaamDepartment of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery, Ajou University Hospital, Suwon, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-0403-2216
Christian G ReichIQVIA, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3641-055X
Clair BlacketerDepartment of Epidemiology, Janssen Research and Development, Titusville, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2570-2124
Dae-Soon SonSamsung Genome Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-5164-4274
Seungbin OhDepartment of Pharmacy, Kangwon University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4183-3637
Rae Woong ParkDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Ajou University Graduate School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4989-3287
Ajou University · KRAjou University Hospital · KRIQVIA (United States) · USJanssen (United States) · USKangwon National University · KRSamsung Medical Center · KRYonsei University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical sequencing data should be shared in order to achieve the sufficient scale and diversity required to provide strong evidence for improving patient care. A distributed research network allows researchers to share this evidence rather than the patient-level data across centers, thereby avoiding privacy issues. The Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) common data model (CDM) used in distributed research networks has low coverage of sequencing data and does not reflect the latest trends of precision medicine.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the feasibility of a genomic CDM (G-CDM), as an extension of the OMOP-CDM, for application of genomic data in clinical practice.

methodsExisting genomic data models and sequencing reports were reviewed to extend the OMOP-CDM to cover genomic data. The Human Genome Organisation Gene Nomenclature Committee and Human Genome Variation Society nomenclature were adopted to standardize the terminology in the model. Sequencing data of 114 and 1060 patients with lung cancer were obtained from the Ajou University School of Medicine database of Ajou University Hospital and The Cancer Genome Atlas, respectively, which were transformed to a format appropriate for the G-CDM. The data were compared with respect to gene name, variant type, and actionable mutations.

resultsThe G-CDM was extended into four tables linked to tables of the OMOP-CDM. Upon comparison with The Cancer Genome Atlas data, a clinically actionable mutation, p.Leu858Arg, in the EGFR gene was 6.64 times more frequent in the Ajou University School of Medicine database, while the p.Gly12Xaa mutation in the KRAS gene was 2.02 times more frequent in The Cancer Genome Atlas dataset. The data-exploring tool GeneProfiler was further developed to conduct descriptive analyses automatically using the G-CDM, which provides the proportions of genes, variant types, and actionable mutations. GeneProfiler also allows for querying the specific gene name and Human Genome Variation Society nomenclature to calculate the proportion of patients with a given mutation.

conclusionsWe developed the G-CDM for effective integration of genomic data with standardized clinical data, allowing for data sharing across institutes. The feasibility of the G-CDM was validated by assessing the differences in data characteristics between two different genomic databases through the proposed data-exploring tool GeneProfiler. The G-CDM may facilitate analyses of interoperating clinical and genomic datasets across multiple institutions, minimizing privacy issues and enabling researchers to better understand the characteristics of patients and promote personalized medicine in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualGenomicsHumansPrecision MedicineRetrospective Studiesdatabases, geneticdata visualizationhigh-throughput nucleotide sequencingmulticenter studypatient privacy

Identifiers

PMID30912749
PMCPMC6454347
OpenAlexW2915954436

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.