Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31337390›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

A clustering approach for detecting implausible observation values in electronic health records data.

Hossein Estiri, Jeffrey G Klann, Shawn N Murphy

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 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Electronic health record data quality assessment and tools: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Digital Health Data Quality Issues: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Using automated methods to detect safety problems with health information technology: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    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

3 authors.

Hossein EstiriLaboratory of Computer Science, Massachusetts General Hospital, 50 Staniford Street, Suite 750, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. hestiri@mgh.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0204-8978
Jeffrey G KlannLaboratory of Computer Science, Massachusetts General Hospital, 50 Staniford Street, Suite 750, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Shawn N MurphyLaboratory of Computer Science, Massachusetts General Hospital, 50 Staniford Street, Suite 750, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.

Funding

RESEARCH TRAINING-MEDICAL INFORMATICS 90T15LM007092 · NLM · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI Nils Gehlenborg · 1992 to 2026
$32.8M
Developing i2b2 into a Health Innovation Platform for Clinical Decision Support in the Genomics EraR01HG009174 · NHGRI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI ARONSON, SAMUEL JEFFREY, MACRAE, CALUM A. · 2016 to 2019
$2.9M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG009174NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007092
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentifying implausible clinical observations (e.g., laboratory test and vital sign values) in Electronic Health Record (EHR) data using rule-based procedures is challenging. Anomaly/outlier detection methods can be applied as an alternative algorithmic approach to flagging such implausible values in EHRs.

methodsThe primary objectives of this research were to develop and test an unsupervised clustering-based anomaly/outlier detection approach for detecting implausible observations in EHR data as an alternative algorithmic solution to the existing procedures. Our approach is built upon two underlying hypotheses that, (i) when there are large number of observations, implausible records should be sparse, and therefore (ii) if these data are clustered properly, clusters with sparse populations should represent implausible observations. To test these hypotheses, we applied an unsupervised clustering algorithm to EHR observation data on 50 laboratory tests from Partners HealthCare. We tested different specifications of the clustering approach and computed confusion matrix indices against a set of silver-standard plausibility thresholds. We compared the results from the proposed approach with conventional anomaly detection (CAD) approaches, including standard deviation and Mahalanobis distance.

resultsWe found that the clustering approach produced results with exceptional specificity and high sensitivity. Compared with the conventional anomaly detection approaches, our proposed clustering approach resulted in significantly smaller number of false positive cases.

conclusionOur contributions include (i) a clustering approach for identifying implausible EHR observations, (ii) evidence that implausible observations are sparse in EHR laboratory test results, (iii) a parallel implementation of the clustering approach on i2b2 star schema, and (3) a set of silver-standard plausibility thresholds for 50 laboratory tests that can be used in other studies for validation. The proposed algorithmic solution can augment human decisions to improve data quality. Therefore, a workflow is needed to complement the algorithm's job and initiate necessary actions that need to be taken in order to improve the quality of data.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCluster AnalysisData AccuracyElectronic Health RecordsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansLogical Observation Identifiers Names and CodesUnsupervised Machine LearningAnomaly detectionData qualityElectronic health recordsImplausible observationsInformatics applicationsUnsupervised clustering

Identifiers

PMID31337390
PMCPMC6652024

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.