ArticleCancer informatics2023
Patient Identification and Tumor Identification Management: Quality Program in a Cancer Multicentric Clinical Data Warehouse.
Article in Cancer informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Regional Basis of Solid Tumor (RBST), a clinical data warehouse, centralizes information related to cancer patient care in 5 health establishments in 2 French departments. Purpose: To develop algorithms matching heterogeneous data to "real" patients and "real" tumors with respect to patient identification (PI) and tumor identification (TI). Methods: A graph database programed in java Neo4j was used to build the RBST with data from ~20 000 patients. The PI algorithm using the Levenshtein distance was based on the regulatory criteria identifying a patient. A TI algorithm was built on 6 characteristics: tumor location and laterality, date of diagnosis, histology, primary and metastatic status. Given the heterogeneous nature and semantics of the collected data, the creation of repositories (organ, synonym, and histology repositories) was required. The TI algorithm used the Dice coefficient to match tumors. Results: Patients matched if there was complete agreement of the given name, surname, sex, and date/month/year of birth. These parameters were assigned weights of 28%, 28%, 21%, and 23% (with 18% for year, 2.5% for month, and 2.5% for day), respectively. The algorithm had a sensitivity of 99.69% (95% confidence interval [CI] [98.89%, 99.96%]) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI [99.72%, 100%]). The TI algorithm used repositories, weights were assigned to the diagnosis date and associated organ (37.5% and 37.5%, respectively), laterality (16%) histology (5%), and metastatic status (4%). This algorithm had a sensitivity of 71% (95% CI [62.68%, 78.25%]) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI [94.31%, 100%]). Conclusion: The RBST encompasses 2 quality controls: PI and TI. It facilitates the implementation of transversal structuring and assessments of the performance of the provided care.
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.