Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38748991›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024

A general framework for developing computable clinical phenotype algorithms.

David S Carrell, James S Floyd, Susan Gruber, Brian L Hazlehurst, Patrick J Heagerty, Jennifer C Nelson, Brian D Williamson, Robert Ball

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Standards and frameworks.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  16. 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

8 authors.

David S CarrellKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8471-0928
James S FloydDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, United States.
Susan GruberPutnam Data Sciences, LLC, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States.
Brian L HazlehurstCenter for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR 97227, United States.
Patrick J HeagertyDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, United States.
Jennifer C NelsonKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2968-2661
Brian D WilliamsonKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98101, United States.
Robert BallOffice of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20993, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1609-7420

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo present a general framework providing high-level guidance to developers of computable algorithms for identifying patients with specific clinical conditions (phenotypes) through a variety of approaches, including but not limited to machine learning and natural language processing methods to incorporate rich electronic health record data. MATERIALS AND

methodsDrawing on extensive prior phenotyping experiences and insights derived from 3 algorithm development projects conducted specifically for this purpose, our team with expertise in clinical medicine, statistics, informatics, pharmacoepidemiology, and healthcare data science methods conceptualized stages of development and corresponding sets of principles, strategies, and practical guidelines for improving the algorithm development process.

resultsWe propose 5 stages of algorithm development and corresponding principles, strategies, and guidelines: (1) assessing fitness-for-purpose, (2) creating gold standard data, (3) feature engineering, (4) model development, and (5) model evaluation. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionThis framework is intended to provide practical guidance and serve as a basis for future elaboration and extension.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsElectronic Health RecordsNatural Language ProcessingPhenotypeHumansMachine Learningcomputable algorithmshealth outcomesmodeling methodsrecommended practices

Identifiers

PMID38748991
PMCPMC11258420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.