ArticleApplied clinical informatics2020
Content Coverage Evaluation of the OMOP Vocabulary on the Transplant Domain Focusing on Concepts Relevant for Kidney Transplant Outcomes Analysis.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breaking Digital Health Barriers Through a Large Language Model-Based Tool for Automated Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Mapping: Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Generalizability of kidney transplant data in electronic health records - The Epic Cosmos database vs the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2025Article
- Leveraging SNOMED CT for patient cohort identification over heterogeneous EHR data.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025Article
- Coverage of Physical Therapy Assessments in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence Reporting Guidelines' Adherence in Nephrology for Improved Research and Clinical Outcomes.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Advancing Toward a Common Data Model in Ophthalmology: Gap Analysis of General Eye Examination Concepts to Standard Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Concepts.Ophthalmology science · 2023Article
- Inclusion of social determinants of health improves sepsis readmission prediction models.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Transforming Anesthesia Data Into the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model: Development and Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Transformation of Electronic Health Records and Questionnaire Data to OMOP CDM: A Feasibility Study Using SG_T2DM Dataset.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImproving outcomes of transplant recipients within and across transplant centers is important with the increasing number of organ transplantations being performed. The current practice is to analyze the outcomes based on patient level data submitted to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). Augmenting the UNOS data with other sources such as the electronic health record will enrich the outcomes analysis, for which a common data model (CDM) can be a helpful tool for transforming heterogeneous source data into a uniform format.
objectivesIn this study, we evaluated the feasibility of representing concepts from the UNOS transplant registry forms with the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) CDM vocabulary to understand the content coverage of OMOP vocabulary on transplant-specific concepts.
methodsTwo annotators manually mapped a total of 3,571 unique concepts extracted from the UNOS registry forms to concepts in the OMOP vocabulary. Concept mappings were evaluated by (1) examining the agreement among the initial two annotators and (2) investigating the number of UNOS concepts not mapped to a concept in the OMOP vocabulary and then classifying them. A subset of mappings was validated by clinicians.
resultsThere was a substantial agreement between annotators with a kappa score of 0.71. We found that 55.5% of UNOS concepts could not be represented with OMOP standard concepts. The majority of unmapped UNOS concepts were categorized into transplant, measurement, condition, and procedure concepts.
conclusionWe identified categories of unmapped concepts and found that some transplant-specific concepts do not exist in the OMOP vocabulary. We suggest that adding these missing concepts to OMOP would facilitate further research in the transplant domain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.