ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science
Exploring the Hazards of Scaling Up Clinical Data Analyses: A Drug Side Effect Discovery Case Report.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding enterprise data warehouses to support clinical and translational research: impact, sustainability, demand management, and accessibility.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Applying Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Drug-Related Side Effect: A Policy Brief.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We assessed the scalability of pharmacological signal detection use case from a single-site CDW to a large aggregated clinical data warehouse (single-site database with 754,214 distinct patient IDs vs. multisite database with 49.8M). We aimed to explore whether a larger clinical dataset would provide clearer signals for secondary analyses such as detecting the known relationship between prednisone and weight. We found significant weight gain rate using the single-site data but not from using aggregated data (0.0104 kg/day, p<0.0001 vs. -0.050 kg/day, p<.0001). This rate was also found more consistently across 30 age and gender subgroups using the single-site data than in the aggregated data (26 vs. 18 significant weight gain findings). Contrary to our expectations, analyses of much larger aggregated clinical datasets did not yield stronger signals. Researchers must check the underlying model assumptions and account for greater heterogeneity when analyzing aggregated multisite data to ensure reliable findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34457132PMC8378643What 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.