Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31369862›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2019

PheValuator: Development and evaluation of a phenotype algorithm evaluator.

Joel N Swerdel, George Hripcsak, Patrick B Ryan

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Semi-supervised ROC analysis for reliable and streamlined evaluation of phenotyping algorithms.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    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.

Joel N SwerdelJanssen Research & Development, 920 Route 202, Raritan, NJ 08869, USA; OHDSI Collaborators, Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI), 622 West 168th Street, PH-20, New York, NY 10032, USA. Electronic address: jswerdel@its.jns.com.
George HripcsakOHDSI Collaborators, Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI), 622 West 168th Street, PH-20, New York, NY 10032, USA; Columbia University, 622 West 168th Street, PH20, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Patrick B RyanJanssen Research & Development, 920 Route 202, Raritan, NJ 08869, USA; OHDSI Collaborators, Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI), 622 West 168th Street, PH-20, New York, NY 10032, USA; Columbia University, 622 West 168th Street, PH20, New York, NY 10032, USA.

Funding

DISCOVERING AND APPLYING KNOWLEDGE IN CLINICAL DATABASESR01LM006910 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI HRIPCSAK, GEORGE M · 2000 to 2023
$10.6M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM006910
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe primary approach for defining disease in observational healthcare databases is to construct phenotype algorithms (PAs), rule-based heuristics predicated on the presence, absence, and temporal logic of clinical observations. However, a complete evaluation of PAs, i.e., determining sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV), is rarely performed. In this study, we propose a tool (PheValuator) to efficiently estimate a complete PA evaluation.

methodsWe used 4 administrative claims datasets: OptumInsight's de-identified Clinformatics™ Datamart (Eden Prairie,MN); IBM MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid); IBM MarketScan Medicare Supplemental Beneficiaries; and IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters from 2000 to 2017. Using PheValuator involves (1) creating a diagnostic predictive model for the phenotype, (2) applying the model to a large set of randomly selected subjects, and (3) comparing each subject's predicted probability for the phenotype to inclusion/exclusion in PAs. We used the predictions as a 'probabilistic gold standard' measure to classify positive/negative cases. We examined 4 phenotypes: myocardial infarction, cerebral infarction, chronic kidney disease, and atrial fibrillation. We examined several PAs for each phenotype including 1-time (1X) occurrence of the diagnosis code in the subject's record and 1-time occurrence of the diagnosis in an inpatient setting with the diagnosis code as the primary reason for admission (1X-IP-1stPos).

resultsAcross phenotypes, the 1X PA showed the highest sensitivity/lowest PPV among all PAs. 1X-IP-1stPos yielded the highest PPV/lowest sensitivity. Specificity was very high across algorithms. We found similar results between algorithms across datasets.

conclusionPheValuator appears to show promise as a tool to estimate PA performance characteristics.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedPhenotypeAtrial FibrillationCerebral InfarctionComputational BiologyCurrent Procedural TerminologyDatabases, FactualDiagnostic ErrorsHumansModels, StatisticalMyocardial InfarctionPredictive Value of TestsProbabilityRenal Insufficiency, ChronicSensitivity and SpecificityDiagnostic predictive modelingPhenotype algorithmsValidation

Identifiers

PMID31369862
PMCPMC7736922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.