Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31469075›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2019

Developing a Standardization Algorithm for Categorical Laboratory Tests for Clinical Big Data Research: Retrospective Study.

Mina Kim, Soo-Yong Shin, Mira Kang, Byoung-Kee Yi, Dong Kyung Chang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Digital Health Data Quality Issues: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Advances in laboratory medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINCDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Automated Mapping of Real-world Oncology Laboratory Data to LOINC.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Mina Kim *Department of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3180-4565
Soo-Yong Shin *Department of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2410-6120
Mira KangDepartment of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7842-0035
Byoung-Kee YiDepartment of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-9629
Dong Kyung ChangDepartment of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8925-4629

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData standardization is essential in electronic health records (EHRs) for both clinical practice and retrospective research. However, it is still not easy to standardize EHR data because of nonidentical duplicates, typographical errors, or inconsistencies. To overcome this drawback, standardization efforts have been undertaken for collecting data in a standardized format as well as for curating the stored data in EHRs. To perform clinical big data research, the stored data in EHR should be standardized, starting from laboratory results, given their importance. However, most of the previous efforts have been based on labor-intensive manual methods.

objectiveWe aimed to develop an automatic standardization method for eliminating the noises of categorical laboratory data, grouping, and mapping of cleaned data using standard terminology.

methodsWe developed a method called standardization algorithm for laboratory test-categorical result (SALT-C) that can process categorical laboratory data, such as pos +, 250 4+ (urinalysis results), and reddish (urinalysis color results). SALT-C consists of five steps. First, it applies data cleaning rules to categorical laboratory data. Second, it categorizes the cleaned data into 5 predefined groups (urine color, urine dipstick, blood type, presence-finding, and pathogenesis tests). Third, all data in each group are vectorized. Fourth, similarity is calculated between the vectors of data and those of each value in the predefined value sets. Finally, the value closest to the data is assigned.

resultsThe performance of SALT-C was validated using 59,213,696 data points (167,938 unique values) generated over 23 years from a tertiary hospital. Apart from the data whose original meaning could not be interpreted correctly (eg, ** and _^), SALT-C mapped unique raw data to the correct reference value for each group with accuracy of 97.6% (123/126; urine color tests), 97.5% (198/203; (urine dipstick tests), 95% (53/56; blood type tests), 99.68% (162,291/162,805; presence-finding tests), and 99.61% (4643/4661; pathogenesis tests).

conclusionsThe proposed SALT-C successfully standardized the categorical laboratory test results with high reliability. SALT-C can be beneficial for clinical big data research by reducing laborious manual standardization efforts.

Indexed as

data qualitydata scienceelectronic health recordsstandardization

Identifiers

PMID31469075
PMCPMC6740165

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.