ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2023
Not all phenotypes are created equal: covariates of success in e-phenotype specification.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of Spatial Analysis on Electronic Health Records to Characterize Patient Phenotypes: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2023.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- Clinical Research Informatics: a Decade-in-Review.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- Advancing phenotyping through informatics innovation.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
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
backgroundElectronic (e)-phenotype specification by noninformaticist investigators remains a challenge. Although validation of each patient returned by e-phenotype could ensure accuracy of cohort representation, this approach is not practical. Understanding the factors leading to successful e-phenotype specification may reveal generalizable strategies leading to better results. MATERIALS AND
methodsNoninformaticist experts (n = 21) were recruited to produce expert-mediated e-phenotypes using i2b2 assisted by a honest data-broker and a project coordinator. Patient- and visit-sets were reidentified and a random sample of 20 charts matching each e-phenotype was returned to experts for chart-validation. Attributes of the queries and expert characteristics were captured and related to chart-validation rates using generalized linear regression models.
resultsE-phenotype validation rates varied according to experts' domains and query characteristics (mean = 61%, range 20-100%). Clinical domains that performed better included infectious, rheumatic, neonatal, and cancers, whereas other domains performed worse (psychiatric, GI, skin, and pulmonary). Match-rate was negatively impacted when specification of temporal constraints was required. In general, the increase in e-phenotype specificity contributed positively to match-rate. DISCUSSIONS AND
conclusionsClinical experts and informaticists experience a variety of challenges when building e-phenotypes, including the inability to differentiate clinical events from patient characteristics or appropriately configure temporal constraints; a lack of access to available and quality data; and difficulty in specifying routes of medication administration. Biomedical query mediation by informaticists and honest data-brokers in designing e-phenotypes cannot be overstated. Although tools such as i2b2 may be widely available to noninformaticists, successful utilization depends not on users' confidence, but rather on creating highly specific e-phenotypes.
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.