ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluation of the completeness of a medical record dataset linked to administrative claims through tokenization in patients with Hemophilia B.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to inform healthcare delivery and expedite access to new therapies, but its value depends on the quality and completeness of information in real-world data (RWD) sources. Tokenization technology enables the integration of patient data from multiple sources, facilitating the development of a comprehensive overview of the patient journey. This study evaluated the accuracy of linked electronic health record (EHR) and insurance claims data for 93 patients with hemophilia B (HB). Tokenization enables secure linkage of patient data from multiple sources by replacing personal identifiers with encrypted tokens, allowing integration while preserving privacy. We assessed the resulting linkage accuracy by comparing hemophilia-related documentation (proportion of patients with matches for hemophilia medication and laboratory results) and patient location (ZIP code). We also evaluated the completeness of these two linked datasets of additional select variables. Tokenization achieved up to 98% linkage accuracy. Completeness varied by data source: EHRs captured 89-100% of key clinical variables, which include disease severity and laboratory values, while claims data ranged from 44-100%, which include healthcare utilization and cost. Full matches were observed in 12% of medication records and 2% of factor laboratory results, highlighting availability in cross-source completeness. Tokenization proved feasible and reliable in a rare disease setting. The small cohort size and rarity of HB enabled manual validation and reduced the risk of erroneous linkages. Findings support the use of tokenization to create composite datasets that integrate clinical and utilization information to provide richer data, thus enhancing the quality of RWE studies in rare diseases. The study's findings are also limited by the small sample size, which may affect generalizability. However, this study provides a foundational description and provides valuable methodological insights into tokenization accuracy and data completeness across EHR and claims datasets for RWE generation.
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.