Automated generation of comparator patients in the electronic medical record

IF 2.6 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Joseph Rigdon, Brian Ostasiewski, Kamah Woelfel, Kimberly D. Wiseman, Tim Hetherington, Stephen Downs, Marc Kowalkowski
{"title":"Automated generation of comparator patients in the electronic medical record","authors":"Joseph Rigdon,&nbsp;Brian Ostasiewski,&nbsp;Kamah Woelfel,&nbsp;Kimberly D. Wiseman,&nbsp;Tim Hetherington,&nbsp;Stephen Downs,&nbsp;Marc Kowalkowski","doi":"10.1002/lrh2.10362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Well-designed randomized trials provide high-quality clinical evidence but are not always feasible or ethical. In their absence, the electronic medical record (EMR) presents a platform to conduct comparative effectiveness research, central to the emerging academic learning health system (aLHS) model. A barrier to realizing this vision is the lack of a process to efficiently generate a reference comparison group for each patient.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To test a multi-step process for the selection of comparators in the EMR.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a mixed-methods study within a large aLHS in North Carolina. We (1) created a list of 35 candidate variables; (2) surveyed 270 researchers to assess the importance of candidate variables; and (3) built consensus rankings around survey-identified variables (ie, importance scores &gt;7) across two panels of 7–8 clinical research experts. Prioritized algorithm inputs were collected from the EMR and applied using a greedy matching technique. Feasibility was measured as the percentage of patients with 100 matched comparators and performance was measured via computational time and Euclidean distance.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Nine variables were selected: age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, insurance status, smoking status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and neighborhood percentage in poverty. The final process successfully generated 100 matched comparators for each of 1.8 million candidate patients, executed in less than 100 min for the majority of strata, and had average Euclidean distance 0.043.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>EMR-derived matching is feasible to implement across a diverse patient population and can provide a reproducible, efficient source of comparator data for observational studies, with additional testing in clinical research applications needed.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":43916,"journal":{"name":"Learning Health Systems","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lrh2.10362","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lrh2.10362","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Well-designed randomized trials provide high-quality clinical evidence but are not always feasible or ethical. In their absence, the electronic medical record (EMR) presents a platform to conduct comparative effectiveness research, central to the emerging academic learning health system (aLHS) model. A barrier to realizing this vision is the lack of a process to efficiently generate a reference comparison group for each patient.

Objective

To test a multi-step process for the selection of comparators in the EMR.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a mixed-methods study within a large aLHS in North Carolina. We (1) created a list of 35 candidate variables; (2) surveyed 270 researchers to assess the importance of candidate variables; and (3) built consensus rankings around survey-identified variables (ie, importance scores >7) across two panels of 7–8 clinical research experts. Prioritized algorithm inputs were collected from the EMR and applied using a greedy matching technique. Feasibility was measured as the percentage of patients with 100 matched comparators and performance was measured via computational time and Euclidean distance.

Results

Nine variables were selected: age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, insurance status, smoking status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and neighborhood percentage in poverty. The final process successfully generated 100 matched comparators for each of 1.8 million candidate patients, executed in less than 100 min for the majority of strata, and had average Euclidean distance 0.043.

Conclusion

EMR-derived matching is feasible to implement across a diverse patient population and can provide a reproducible, efficient source of comparator data for observational studies, with additional testing in clinical research applications needed.

Abstract Image

在电子病历中自动生成比较病人
背景设计良好的随机试验可提供高质量的临床证据,但并不总是可行或符合道德规范。在缺乏随机试验的情况下,电子病历(EMR)提供了一个进行比较有效性研究的平台,这也是新兴的学术学习型医疗系统(aLHS)模式的核心。实现这一愿景的一个障碍是缺乏为每位患者有效生成参考对比组的流程。 目标 测试在 EMR 中选择参照组的多步骤流程。 材料与方法 我们在北卡罗来纳州的一家大型非住院医疗服务机构内开展了一项混合方法研究。我们(1)创建了一份包含 35 个候选变量的清单;(2)对 270 名研究人员进行了调查,以评估候选变量的重要性;(3)在由 7-8 名临床研究专家组成的两个小组中,围绕调查确定的变量(即重要性分数 >7)建立了共识排名。从 EMR 中收集优先算法输入,并使用贪婪匹配技术进行应用。可行性以 100 个匹配参照物的患者百分比来衡量,性能则通过计算时间和欧氏距离来衡量。 结果 选定了九个变量:年龄、性别、种族、民族、体重指数、保险状况、吸烟状况、查尔森综合指数和贫困社区百分比。最终,在 180 万名候选患者中,每名患者都成功生成了 100 个匹配的比较对象,大多数分层的执行时间不到 100 分钟,平均欧氏距离为 0.043。 结论 EMR 衍生匹配在不同的患者群体中是可行的,可以为观察性研究提供可重复的、高效的参照数据源,但还需要在临床研究应用中进行更多测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Learning Health Systems
Learning Health Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
22.60%
发文量
55
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信