{"title":"Robust replication of associations across patient-mediated and provider-sourced EHR data in the <i>All of Us</i> research program.","authors":"Chenjie Zeng, Bennett J Waxse, Joshua C Denny","doi":"10.1038/s44482-026-00032-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The <i>All of Us</i> Research Program is assembling a nationwide cohort with electronic health record (EHR) resources through two complementary pathways: healthcare provider organization (HPO)-sourced EHRs and patient-mediated EHR (PME) contributed through patient portal linkages. The comparative research utility of these two data sources has not been systematically evaluated. Here, we compared PME and HPO EHRs with respect to disease prevalence, phenotype-phenotype associations, and replication of established genotype-phenotype associations using data from 19,703 PME and 373,887 HPO participants. We benchmarked disease prevalence against national estimates, conducted phenome-wide association studies for 10 commonly studied diseases, and tested replication of more than 5000 established genotype-phenotype associations across multiple ancestral groups. Disease prevalence was consistently lower in PME than in HPO, although prevalence of most diseases in both cohorts exceeded national estimates. Both data sources reproduced known phenotype-phenotype associations and showed moderate-to-strong concordance in effect sizes across the phenome. The overall genotype-phenotype replication rate was 49.1% (5399/10,999) in HPO and 5.9% (381/6482) in PME across ancestral groups, with effect sizes strongly correlated among well-powered associations (<i>R</i> = 0.84, <i>P</i> < 0.001). To disentangle the impact of sample size from data quality, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching. After matching, the replication gap in genotype-phenotype associations narrowed from 8.3-fold to 1.3-fold, with equivalent replication rates among adequately powered associations and strongly concordant effect sizes; comorbidity patterns were also consistent across all 10 diseases tested. These findings demonstrate that both data sources are valuable for clinical and genomic research and can inform other cohorts integrating provider-derived and patient-mediated EHRs.</p>","PeriodicalId":521229,"journal":{"name":"npj digital public health","volume":"1 1","pages":"31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13549936/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"npj digital public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s44482-026-00032-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The All of Us Research Program is assembling a nationwide cohort with electronic health record (EHR) resources through two complementary pathways: healthcare provider organization (HPO)-sourced EHRs and patient-mediated EHR (PME) contributed through patient portal linkages. The comparative research utility of these two data sources has not been systematically evaluated. Here, we compared PME and HPO EHRs with respect to disease prevalence, phenotype-phenotype associations, and replication of established genotype-phenotype associations using data from 19,703 PME and 373,887 HPO participants. We benchmarked disease prevalence against national estimates, conducted phenome-wide association studies for 10 commonly studied diseases, and tested replication of more than 5000 established genotype-phenotype associations across multiple ancestral groups. Disease prevalence was consistently lower in PME than in HPO, although prevalence of most diseases in both cohorts exceeded national estimates. Both data sources reproduced known phenotype-phenotype associations and showed moderate-to-strong concordance in effect sizes across the phenome. The overall genotype-phenotype replication rate was 49.1% (5399/10,999) in HPO and 5.9% (381/6482) in PME across ancestral groups, with effect sizes strongly correlated among well-powered associations (R = 0.84, P < 0.001). To disentangle the impact of sample size from data quality, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching. After matching, the replication gap in genotype-phenotype associations narrowed from 8.3-fold to 1.3-fold, with equivalent replication rates among adequately powered associations and strongly concordant effect sizes; comorbidity patterns were also consistent across all 10 diseases tested. These findings demonstrate that both data sources are valuable for clinical and genomic research and can inform other cohorts integrating provider-derived and patient-mediated EHRs.
“我们所有人”研究项目正在通过两种互补的途径,即医疗保健提供者组织(HPO)提供的电子健康记录(EHR)和通过患者门户链接提供的患者介导的电子健康记录(PME),对全国范围内的电子健康记录(EHR)资源进行汇总。这两种数据来源的比较研究效用尚未得到系统评价。在这里,我们使用19703名PME和373887名HPO参与者的数据,比较了PME和HPO在疾病患病率、表型-表型关联以及已建立的基因型-表型关联的复制方面的电子病历。我们以国家估计的疾病患病率为基准,对10种常见疾病进行了全表型关联研究,并在多个祖先群体中测试了5000多种已建立的基因型-表型关联的复制。PME的疾病患病率始终低于HPO,尽管两个队列中大多数疾病的患病率都超过了国家估计。这两个数据来源都再现了已知的表型-表型关联,并在整个表型的效应大小上显示出中等到强烈的一致性。在不同的祖先群体中,HPO和PME的总体基因型-表型复制率分别为49.1%(5399/10,999)和5.9%(381/6482),且效应量在高强度关联中呈强相关(R = 0.84, P