ReviewYearbook of medical informatics2021
Key Contributions in Clinical Research Informatics.
Review in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo summarize key contributions to current research in the field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) and to select best papers published in 2020.
methodA bibliographic search using a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) descriptors and free-text terms on CRI was performed using PubMed, followed by a double-blind review in order to select a list of candidate best papers to be then peer-reviewed by external reviewers. After peer-review ranking, a consensus meeting between two section editors and the editorial team was organized to finally conclude on the selected four best papers.
resultsAmong the 877 papers published in 2020 and returned by the search, there were four best papers selected. The first best paper describes a method for mining temporal sequences from clinical documents to infer disease trajectories and enhancing high-throughput phenotyping. The authors of the second best paper demonstrate that the generation of synthetic Electronic Health Record (EHR) data through Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) could be substantially improved by more appropriate training and evaluation criteria. The third best paper offers an efficient advance on methods to detect adverse drug events by computer-assisting expert reviewers with annotated candidate mentions in clinical documents. The large-scale data quality assessment study reported by the fourth best paper has clinical research informatics implications, in terms of the trustworthiness of inferences made from analysing electronic health records.
conclusionsThe most significant research efforts in the CRI field are currently focusing on data science with active research in the development and evaluation of Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) algorithms based on ever more intensive use of real-world data and especially EHR real or synthetic data. A major lesson that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has already taught the scientific CRI community is that timely international high-quality data-sharing and collaborative data analysis is absolutely vital to inform policy decisions.
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.