Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36115637›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials2022

Performance of EHR classifiers for patient eligibility in a clinical trial of precision screening.

Nicholas V J Alexander, Charles A Brunette, Eric T Guardino, Thomas Yi, Benjamin J Kerman, Katharine MacIsaac, Elizabeth J Harris, Ashley A Antwi, Jason L Vassy

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicholas V J AlexanderC.I. Parhon National Institute of Endocrinology, Bucharest, Romania; Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
Charles A BrunetteVeterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
Eric T GuardinoVeterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Thomas YiVeterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
Benjamin J KermanHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Katharine MacIsaacVeterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Elizabeth J HarrisVeterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Ashley A AntwiVeterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
Jason L VassyVeterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Precision Population Health, Ariadne Labs, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: jvassy@bwh.harvard.edu.
VA Boston Healthcare System · USHarvard University · US

Funding

Pragmatic randomized trial of polygenic risk scoring for common diseases in primary careR35HG010706 · NHGRI · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI VASSY, JASON L · 2019 to 2024
$2.6M
NHGRI NIH HHS R35 HG010706
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundValidated computable eligibility criteria use real-world data and facilitate the conduct of clinical trials. The Genomic Medicine at VA (GenoVA) Study is a pragmatic trial of polygenic risk score testing enrolling patients without known diagnoses of 6 common diseases: atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and prostate cancer. We describe the validation of computable disease classifiers as eligibility criteria and their performance in the first 16 months of trial enrollment.

methodsWe identified well-performing published computable classifiers for the 6 target diseases and validated these in the target population using blinded physician review. If needed, classifiers were refined and then underwent a subsequent round of blinded review until true positive and true negative rates ≥80% were achieved. The optimized classifiers were then implemented as pre-screening exclusion criteria; telephone screens enabled an assessment of their real-world negative predictive value (NPV-RW).

resultsPublished classifiers for type 2 diabetes and breast and prostate cancer achieved desired performance in blinded chart review without modification; the classifier for atrial fibrillation required two rounds of refinement before achieving desired performance. Among the 1077 potential participants screened in the first 16 months of enrollment, NPV-RW of the classifiers ranged from 98.4% for coronary artery disease to 99.9% for colorectal cancer. Performance did not differ by gender or race/ethnicity.

conclusionsComputable disease classifiers can serve as efficient and accurate pre-screening classifiers for clinical trials, although performance will depend on the trial objectives and diseases under study.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationCoronary Artery DiseaseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Prostatic NeoplasmsClinical Trials as TopicEligibility DeterminationFemaleHumansMaleClassifierEHRPhenotypingPragmatic trialPreventive genomics

Identifiers

PMID36115637
PMCPMC10311696
OpenAlexW4295808909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.