ArticleClinical epidemiology2026
Adaptive Multi-Wave Sampling for Efficient Chart Validation.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To use computable phenotypes for characterization of patients and identification of outcomes in studies conducted using healthcare claims and electronic health record data. Chart review studies establish reference labels against which computable phenotypes are compared to understand their measurement characteristics (the quantity of interest), for instance, the positive predictive value. Methods: We describe a method to adaptively evaluate a quantity of interest over sequential samples of charts, with the goal to minimize the number of charts reviewed. With the help of a simultaneous confidence band, we stop the reviewing once the confidence band meets a pre-specified stopping threshold. The contribution of this work is threefold. First, we test the use of an adaptive approach called Neyman's sampling versus random or stratified random sampling. Second, we propose frequentist confidence bands and Bayesian credible intervals to sequentially evaluate the quantity of interest. Third, we propose a tool to predict the stopping time (defined as the number of charts reviewed) at which the chart review would be complete. Results: We observe that Bayesian credible intervals prove to be tighter than its frequentist confidence band counterparts. Moreover, we observe that simple random sampling often performs similarly to Neyman's sampling. Conclusion: We conclude that random sampling in connection with Bayesian credible intervals allows for an efficient validation of a response of interest for both binary and continuous outcomes.
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.