Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37319288›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Evaluation of data processing pipelines on real-world electronic health records data for the purpose of measuring patient similarity.

Maria Pikoula, Constantinos Kallis, Sephora Madjiheurem, Jennifer K Quint, Mona Bafadhel, Spiros Denaxas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Maria PikoulaInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9138-3603
Constantinos KallisNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0866-5421
Sephora MadjiheuremDepartment of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jennifer K QuintNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0149-4869
Mona BafadhelSchool of Immunology and Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Spiros DenaxasInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9612-7791

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_20059
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ever-growing size, breadth, and availability of patient data allows for a wide variety of clinical features to serve as inputs for phenotype discovery using cluster analysis. Data of mixed types in particular are not straightforward to combine into a single feature vector, and techniques used to address this can be biased towards certain data types in ways that are not immediately obvious or intended. In this context, the process of constructing clinically meaningful patient representations from complex datasets has not been systematically evaluated.

aimsOur aim was to a) outline and b) implement an analytical framework to evaluate distinct methods of constructing patient representations from routine electronic health record data for the purpose of measuring patient similarity. We applied the analysis on a patient cohort diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

methodsUsing data from the CALIBER data resource, we extracted clinically relevant features for a cohort of patients diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We used four different data processing pipelines to construct lower dimensional patient representations from which we calculated patient similarity scores. We described the resulting representations, ranked the influence of each individual feature on patient similarity and evaluated the effect of different pipelines on clustering outcomes. Experts evaluated the resulting representations by rating the clinical relevance of similar patient suggestions with regard to a reference patient.

resultsEach of the four pipelines resulted in similarity scores primarily driven by a unique set of features. It was demonstrated that data transformations according to each pipeline prior to clustering can result in a variation of clustering results of over 40%. The most appropriate pipeline was selected on the basis of feature ranking and clinical expertise. There was moderate agreement between clinicians as measured by Cohen's kappa coefficient.

conclusionsData transformation has downstream and unforeseen consequences in cluster analysis. Rather than viewing this process as a black box, we have shown ways to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate and select the appropriate preprocessing pipeline.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveCluster AnalysisHumans

Identifiers

PMID37319288
PMCPMC10270623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.