ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2024
Identifying erroneous height and weight values from adult electronic health records in the All of Us research program.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
introductionElectronic Health Records (EHR) are a useful data source for research, but their usability is hindered by measurement errors. This study investigated an automatic error detection algorithm for adult height and weight measurements in EHR for the All of Us Research Program (All of Us).
methodsWe developed reference charts for adult heights and weights that were stratified on participant sex. Our analysis included 4,076,534 height and 5,207,328 wt measurements from ∼ 150,000 participants. Errors were identified using modified standard deviation scores, differences from their expected values, and significant changes between consecutive measurements. We evaluated our method with chart-reviewed heights (8,092) and weights (9,039) from 250 randomly selected participants and compared it with the current cleaning algorithm in All of Us.
resultsThe proposed algorithm classified 1.4 % of height and 1.5 % of weight errors in the full cohort. Sensitivity was 90.4 % (95 % CI: 79.0-96.8 %) for heights and 65.9 % (95 % CI: 56.9-74.1 %) for weights. Precision was 73.4 % (95 % CI: 60.9-83.7 %) for heights and 62.9 (95 % CI: 54.0-71.1 %) for weights. In comparison, the current cleaning algorithm has inferior performance in sensitivity (55.8 %) and precision (16.5 %) for height errors while having higher precision (94.0 %) and lower sensitivity (61.9 %) for weight errors. DISCUSSION: Our proposed algorithm outperformed in detecting height errors compared to weights. It can serve as a valuable addition to the current All of Us cleaning algorithm for identifying erroneous height values.
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.