ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2022
A Representativeness-informed Model for Research Record Selection from Electronic Medical Record Systems.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing and sustaining inclusive language in biomedical informatics communications: an AMIA Board of Directors endorsed paper on the Inclusive Language and Context Style Guidelines.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- HIV Risk Score and Prediction Model in the United States: A Scoping Review.AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
- Computational strategic recruitment for representation and coverage studied in the All of Us Research Program.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- A decade of research on genetic privacy: the findings of the GetPreCiSe Center at Vanderbilt University.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Review
- Adaptive Recruitment Resource Allocation to Improve Cohort Representativeness in Participatory Biomedical Datasets.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scientific and clinical studies have a long history of bias in recruitment of underprivileged and minority populations. This underrepresentation leads to inaccurate, inapplicable, and non-generalizable results. Electronic medical record (EMR) systems, which now drive much research, often poorly represent these groups. We introduce a method for quantifying representativeness using information theoretic measures and an algorithmic approach to select a more representative record cohort than random selection when resource limitations preclude researchers from reviewing every record in the database. We apply this method to select cohorts of 2,000-20,000 records from a large (2M+ records) EMR database at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center and assess representativeness based on age, ethnicity, race, and gender. Compared to random selection - which will on average mirror the EMR database demographics - we find that a representativeness-informed approach can compose a cohort of records that is approximately 5.8 times more representative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37128377PMC10148281What 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.