ArticleApplied clinical informatics2025
Application of an Externally Developed Algorithm to Identify Research Cases and Controls from EHR Data: Trials and Triumphs.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2025. 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.
- A Novel Digital Phenotype for Burn Sepsis: Leveraging Electronic Health Record Data and Natural Language Processing to Improve Case Definition.Applied clinical informatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of electronic health records (EHRs) in research demands robust and interoperable systems. By linking biorepositories to EHR algorithms, researchers can efficiently identify cases and controls for large observational studies (e.g., genome-wide association studies). This is critical for ensuring efficient and cost-effective research. However, the lack of standardized metadata and algorithms across different EHRs complicates their sharing and application. Our study presents an example of a successful implementation and validation process.This study aimed to implement and validate a rule-based algorithm from a tertiary medical center in Tennessee to classify cases and controls from a research study on rotator cuff tear (RCT) nested within a tertiary medical center in North Texas and to assess the algorithm's performance.We applied a phenotypic algorithm (designed and validated in a tertiary medical center in Tennessee) using EHR data from 492 patients enrolled in a case-control study recruited from a tertiary medical center in North Texas. The algorithm leveraged the international classification of diseases and current procedural terminology codes to identify case and control status for degenerative RCT. A manual review was conducted to compare the algorithm's classification with a previously recorded gold standard documented by clinical researchers.Initially the algorithm identified 398 (80.9%) patients correctly as cases or controls. After fine-tuning and correcting errors in our gold standard dataset, we calculated a sensitivity of 0.94 and a specificity of 0.76. The implementation of the algorithm presented challenges due to the variability in coding practices between medical centers. To enhance performance, we refined the algorithm's data dictionary by incorporating additional codes. The process highlighted the need for meticulous code verification and standardization in multi-center studies.Sharing case-control algorithms boosts EHR research. Our rule-based algorithm improved multi-site patient identification and revealed 12 data entry errors, helping validate our results.
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.