ArticleNeuro-oncology2024
Developing a computable phenotype for glioblastoma.
Article in Neuro-oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Overcoming the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in pediatric CNS tumors: immunotherapy and nanomedicine-driven strategies.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- Real-world mortality and the effect of comorbidities on survival in glioblastoma: A database study using computed phenotypes for rapid, reliable patient identification.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGlioblastoma is the most common malignant brain tumor, and thus it is important to be able to identify patients with this diagnosis for population studies. However, this can be challenging as diagnostic codes are nonspecific. The aim of this study was to create a computable phenotype (CP) for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) from structured and unstructured data to identify patients with this condition in a large electronic health record (EHR).
methodsWe used the University of Florida (UF) Health Integrated Data Repository, a centralized clinical data warehouse that stores clinical and research data from various sources within the UF Health system, including the EHR system. We performed multiple iterations to refine the GBM-relevant diagnosis codes, procedure codes, medication codes, and keywords through manual chart review of patient data. We then evaluated the performances of various possible proposed CPs constructed from the relevant codes and keywords.
resultsWe underwent six rounds of manual chart reviews to refine the CP elements. The final CP algorithm for identifying GBM patients was selected based on the best F1-score. Overall, the CP rule "if the patient had at least 1 relevant diagnosis code and at least 1 relevant keyword" demonstrated the highest F1-score using both structured and unstructured data. Thus, it was selected as the best-performing CP rule.
conclusionsWe developed and validated a CP algorithm for identifying patients with GBM using both structured and unstructured EHR data from a large tertiary care center. The final algorithm achieved an F1-score of 0.817, indicating a high performance, which minimizes possible biases from misclassification errors.
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.