Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33317497›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020

An ontology-based documentation of data discovery and integration process in cancer outcomes research.

Hansi Zhang, Yi Guo, Mattia Prosperi, Jiang Bian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. REPCAN: Guideline for REporting Population-based CANcer Registry Data.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023
    Guideline
  2. A bibliometric review of predictive modelling for cervical cancer risk.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2024
    Review
  3. Prostate cancer in omics era.Cancer cell international · 2022
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Semantic standards of external exposome data.Environmental research · 2021
    Review
  6. 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

4 authors.

Hansi ZhangDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 2197 Mowry Road, Suite 122, PO Box 100177, Gainesville, FL, 32610-0177, USA.
Yi GuoDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 2197 Mowry Road, Suite 122, PO Box 100177, Gainesville, FL, 32610-0177, USA.
Mattia ProsperiDepartment of Epidemiology, College of Medicine & College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Jiang BianDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 2197 Mowry Road, Suite 122, PO Box 100177, Gainesville, FL, 32610-0177, USA. bianjiang@ufl.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2238-5429

Funding

Using social networks to map and evaluate team science across CTSA hubsUL1TR001427 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI MITCHELL, DUANE A. · 2015 to 2024
$37.2M
The benefits and harms of lung cancer screening in FloridaR01CA246418 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI BIAN, JIANG, GUO, YI · 2020 to 2023
$1.7M
Using Electronic Health Records from a Large Clinical Data Research Network to Understand Cancer Burden and Cancer Risks Among Transgender and Gender Nonconforming (TGNC) IndividualsR21CA245858 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI BIAN, JIANG, GUO, YI · 2020 to 2021
$773k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001427NCI NIH HHS R01 CA246418NCI NIH HHS R21 CA245858Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute ME-2018C3-14754
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo reduce cancer mortality and improve cancer outcomes, it is critical to understand the various cancer risk factors (RFs) across different domains (e.g., genetic, environmental, and behavioral risk factors) and levels (e.g., individual, interpersonal, and community levels). However, prior research on RFs of cancer outcomes, has primarily focused on individual level RFs due to the lack of integrated datasets that contain multi-level, multi-domain RFs. Further, the lack of a consensus and proper guidance on systematically identify RFs also increase the difficulty of RF selection from heterogenous data sources in a multi-level integrative data analysis (mIDA) study. More importantly, as mIDA studies require integrating heterogenous data sources, the data integration processes in the limited number of existing mIDA studies are inconsistently performed and poorly documented, and thus threatening transparency and reproducibility.

methodsInformed by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) research framework, we (1) reviewed existing reporting guidelines from the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network and (2) developed a theory-driven reporting guideline to guide the RF variable selection, data source selection, and data integration process. Then, we developed an ontology to standardize the documentation of the RF selection and data integration process in mIDA studies.

resultsWe summarized the review results and created a reporting guideline-ATTEST-for reporting the variable selection and data source selection and integration process. We provided an ATTEST check list to help researchers to annotate and clearly document each step of their mIDA studies to ensure the transparency and reproducibility. We used the ATTEST to report two mIDA case studies and further transformed annotation results into sematic triples, so that the relationships among variables, data sources and integration processes are explicitly standardized and modeled using the classes and properties from OD-ATTEST.

conclusionOur ontology-based reporting guideline solves some key challenges in current mIDA studies for cancer outcomes research, through providing (1) a theory-driven guidance for multi-level and multi-domain RF variable and data source selection; and (2) a standardized documentation of the data selection and integration processes powered by an ontology, thus a way to enable sharing of mIDA study reports among researchers.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsDocumentationHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalOutcome Assessment, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsCancer outcomes researchIntegrative data analysisOntologyReporting guideline

Identifiers

PMID33317497
PMCPMC7734720

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.