Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31014403›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2019

Integrating terminologies into standard SQL: a new approach for research on routine data.

André Sander, Roland Wauer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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.

André SanderID GmbH & Co. KGaA, Platz vor dem Neuen Tor 2, 10115, Berlin, Germany. asander@id-berlin.de.ORCID 0000-0002-1843-3125
Roland WauerKlinik für Neonatologie, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10098, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost electronic medical records still contain large amounts of free-text data. Semantic evaluation of such data requires the data to be encoded with sufficient classifications or transformed into a knowledge-based database.

methodsWe present an approach that allows databases accessible via SQL (Structured Query Language) to be searched directly through semantic queries without the need for further transformations. Therefore, we developed I) an extension to SQL named Ontology-SQL (O-SQL) that allows to use semantic expressions, II) a framework that uses a standard terminology server to annotate free-text containing database tables and III) a parser that rewrites O-SQL to SQL, so that such queries can be passed to the database server.

resultsI) We compared several semantic queries published to date and were able to reproduce them in a reduced, highly condensed form. II) The quality of the annotation process was measured against manual annotation, and we found a sensitivity of 97.62% and a specificity of 100.00%. III) Different semantic queries were analyzed, and measured with F-scores between 0.91 and 0.98.

conclusionsWe showed that systematic analysis of free-text-containing medical records is possible with standard tools. The seamless connection of ontologies and standard technologies from the database field represents an important constituent of unstructured data analysis. The developed technology can be readily applied to relationally organized data and supports the increasingly important field of translational research.

Indexed as

Programming LanguagesSemanticsData MiningElectronic Health RecordsData mining (knowledge discovery)Infant mortalityOntology-based queriesTerminology serverTranslational research

Identifiers

PMID31014403
PMCPMC6480592

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.