ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020
Development of Phenotyping Algorithms for the Identification of Organ Transplant Recipients: Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Association of Solid Organ and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Indication With Skin Cancer Risk.Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] · 2025Article
- Validating Recipients of Pediatric Solid Organ Transplant Using Administrative Healthcare Data.Pediatric transplantation · 2025Article
- Nicotinamide for Skin Cancer Chemoprevention.JAMA dermatology · 2025Article
- Internal Cancers in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients with a Post-Transplant Skin Cancer: A Cohort Study.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2025Article
- Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Following Nicotinamide Exposure.JAMA dermatology · 2025Article
- Utilization Trends of Glucose-Lowering Medications Among Adult Kidney Transplant Recipients with Type 2 Diabetes in the United States.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Human leukocyte antigen type does not improve risk stratification for SUNTRAC score in solid organ transplant recipients: A cohort study.JAAD international · 2024Article
- Voriconazole metabolism is associated with the number of skin cancers per patient.Archives of dermatological research · 2024Article
- Voriconazole Metabolism is Associated with the Number of Skin Cancers Per Patient.Research square · 2024Article
- Dermatology Healthcare Utilization in Solid-Organ Transplant Recipients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2024Article
- Leveraging electronic health record data for clinical trial planning by assessing eligibility criteria's impact on patient count and safety.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStudies involving organ transplant recipients (OTRs) are often limited to the variables collected in the national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database. Electronic health records contain additional variables that can augment this data source if OTRs can be identified accurately.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to develop phenotyping algorithms to identify OTRs from electronic health records.
methodsWe used Vanderbilt's deidentified version of its electronic health record database, which contains nearly 3 million subjects, to develop algorithms to identify OTRs. We identified all 19,817 individuals with at least one International Classification of Diseases (ICD) or Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code for organ transplantation. We performed a chart review on 1350 randomly selected individuals to determine the transplant status. We constructed machine learning models to calculate positive predictive values and sensitivity for combinations of codes by using classification and regression trees, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting algorithms.
resultsOf the 1350 reviewed patient charts, 827 were organ transplant recipients while 511 had no record of a transplant, and 12 were equivocal. Most patients with only 1 or 2 transplant codes did not have a transplant. The most common reasons for being labeled a nontransplant patient were the lack of data (229/511, 44.8%) or the patient being evaluated for an organ transplant (174/511, 34.1%). All 3 machine learning algorithms identified OTRs with overall >90% positive predictive value and >88% sensitivity.
conclusionsElectronic health records linked to biobanks are increasingly used to conduct large-scale studies but have not been well-utilized in organ transplantation research. We present rigorously evaluated methods for phenotyping OTRs from electronic health records that will enable the use of the full spectrum of clinical data in transplant research. Using several different machine learning algorithms, we were able to identify transplant cases with high accuracy by using only ICD and CPT codes.
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.