Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33215074›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2020

Evaluation of patient-level retrieval from electronic health record data for a cohort discovery task.

Steven R Chamberlin, Steven D Bedrick, Aaron M Cohen, Yanshan Wang, Andrew Wen, Sijia Liu, Hongfang Liu, William R Hersh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Clinical Information Retrieval: A Literature Review.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2024
    Article
  4. quEHRy: a question answering system to query electronic health records.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Steven R ChamberlinDepartment of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Steven D BedrickDepartment of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Aaron M CohenDepartment of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Yanshan WangDivision of Digital Health Sciences, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Andrew WenDivision of Digital Health Sciences, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Sijia LiuDivision of Digital Health Sciences, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Hongfang LiuDivision of Digital Health Sciences, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
William R HershDepartment of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4114-5148
Mayo Clinic in Florida · USOregon Health & Science University · US

Funding

Semi-structured Information Retrieval in Clinical Text for Cohort IdentificationR01LM011934 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI HERSH, WILLIAM R, LIU, HONGFANG · 2014 to 2025
$5.1M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011934
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGrowing numbers of academic medical centers offer patient cohort discovery tools to their researchers, yet the performance of systems for this use case is not well understood. The objective of this research was to assess patient-level information retrieval methods using electronic health records for different types of cohort definition retrieval. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe developed a test collection consisting of about 100 000 patient records and 56 test topics that characterized patient cohort requests for various clinical studies. Automated information retrieval tasks using word-based approaches were performed, varying 4 different parameters for a total of 48 permutations, with performance measured using B-Pref. We subsequently created structured Boolean queries for the 56 topics for performance comparisons. In addition, we performed a more detailed analysis of 10 topics.

resultsThe best-performing word-based automated query parameter settings achieved a mean B-Pref of 0.167 across all 56 topics. The way a topic was structured (topic representation) had the largest impact on performance. Performance not only varied widely across topics, but there was also a large variance in sensitivity to parameter settings across the topics. Structured queries generally performed better than automated queries on measures of recall and precision but were still not able to recall all relevant patients found by the automated queries.

conclusionWhile word-based automated methods of cohort retrieval offer an attractive solution to the labor-intensive nature of this task currently used at many medical centers, we generally found suboptimal performance in those approaches, with better performance obtained from structured Boolean queries. Future work will focus on using the test collection to develop and evaluate new approaches to query structure, weighting algorithms, and application of semantic methods.

Indexed as

electronic health recordinformation retrievalpatient cohort discoverystructured queries

Identifiers

PMID33215074
PMCPMC7660955
OpenAlexW3045357469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.