Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31234921›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

The Generalized Data Model for clinical research.

Mark D Danese, Marc Halperin, Jennifer Duryea, Ryan Duryea

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. How is AI developing in pharmacovigilance?Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. A data model for population descriptors in genomic research.American journal of human genetics · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Data Provenance in Biomedical Research: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Big Data in Nephrology.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2021
    Review
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.

Mark D DaneseOutcomes Insights, Inc., 2801 Townsgate Road, Suite 330, Westlake Village, CA, 91361, USA. mark@outins.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7068-9603
Marc HalperinOutcomes Insights, Inc., 2801 Townsgate Road, Suite 330, Westlake Village, CA, 91361, USA.
Jennifer DuryeaOutcomes Insights, Inc., 2801 Townsgate Road, Suite 330, Westlake Village, CA, 91361, USA.
Ryan DuryeaOutcomes Insights, Inc., 2801 Townsgate Road, Suite 330, Westlake Village, CA, 91361, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost healthcare data sources store information within their own unique schemas, making reliable and reproducible research challenging. Consequently, researchers have adopted various data models to improve the efficiency of research. Transforming and loading data into these models is a labor-intensive process that can alter the semantics of the original data. Therefore, we created a data model with a hierarchical structure that simplifies the transformation process and minimizes data alteration.

methodsThere were two design goals in constructing the tables and table relationships for the Generalized Data Model (GDM). The first was to focus on clinical codes in their original vocabularies to retain the original semantic representation of the data. The second was to retain hierarchical information present in the original data while retaining provenance. The model was tested by transforming synthetic Medicare data; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data linked to Medicare claims; and electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We also tested a subsequent transformation from the GDM into the Sentinel data model.

resultsThe resulting data model contains 19 tables, with the Clinical Codes, Contexts, and Collections tables serving as the core of the model, and containing most of the clinical, provenance, and hierarchical information. In addition, a Mapping table allows users to apply an arbitrarily complex set of relationships among vocabulary elements to facilitate automated analyses.

conclusionsThe GDM offers researchers a simpler process for transforming data, clear data provenance, and a path for users to transform their data into other data models. The GDM is designed to retain hierarchical relationships among data elements as well as the original semantic representation of the data, ensuring consistency in protocol implementation as part of a complete data pipeline for researchers.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDatabases, FactualData ManagementElectronic Health RecordsHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMedicareSemanticsUnited StatesClaims dataData modelElectronic health records

Identifiers

PMID31234921
PMCPMC6591926

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.