评估我们所有人研究项目中外科肿瘤队列的数据质量维度。

IF 3.3 Q2 ONCOLOGY
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-08 DOI:10.1200/CCI-25-00078
Matthew Spotnitz, John Giannini, Emily Clark, Yechiam Ostchega, Tamara R Litwin, Stephanie L Goff, Lew Berman
{"title":"评估我们所有人研究项目中外科肿瘤队列的数据质量维度。","authors":"Matthew Spotnitz, John Giannini, Emily Clark, Yechiam Ostchega, Tamara R Litwin, Stephanie L Goff, Lew Berman","doi":"10.1200/CCI-25-00078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Mapping electronic health record (EHR) data to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP CDM) may standardize data structure and allow for multiple database oncology studies. However, the number of oncology studies produced with the OMOP CDM has been low. To investigate the discrepancy between the public health impact of cancer and the output of OMOP CDM clinical cancer studies, we evaluated (EHR) data quality of five surgical oncology cohorts in the <i>All of Us</i> Research Program: mastectomy, prostatectomy, colectomy, melanoma excision, and lung cancer resection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We selected procedure codes that were the basis of each phenotype. We used a data quality checklist to evaluate five domains systematically: conformance, completeness, concordance, plausibility, and temporality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most phenotype-defining source codes were mapped to Current Procedural Terminology 4, which is an EHR standard. All cohorts had low concept prevalence. Most bivariate correlations between concepts were weak (⍴ ≤ 0.5). The small number of biomarkers available for use limited our plausibility analysis. The median time between biopsy and surgery varied across cohorts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We identified multiple data completeness issues, which limited the fitness for use evaluation. Also, using the OMOP CDM procedure concepts and mappings presented challenges for our study. Variable amounts of missingness in OMOP CDM surgical oncology data may affect the fitness for use of cancer data. Further research is warranted to improve the quality of that data.</p>","PeriodicalId":51626,"journal":{"name":"JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics","volume":"9 ","pages":"e2500078"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12240465/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Data Quality Dimensions of Surgical Oncology Cohorts in the <i>All of Us</i> Research Program.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Spotnitz, John Giannini, Emily Clark, Yechiam Ostchega, Tamara R Litwin, Stephanie L Goff, Lew Berman\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/CCI-25-00078\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Mapping electronic health record (EHR) data to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP CDM) may standardize data structure and allow for multiple database oncology studies. However, the number of oncology studies produced with the OMOP CDM has been low. To investigate the discrepancy between the public health impact of cancer and the output of OMOP CDM clinical cancer studies, we evaluated (EHR) data quality of five surgical oncology cohorts in the <i>All of Us</i> Research Program: mastectomy, prostatectomy, colectomy, melanoma excision, and lung cancer resection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We selected procedure codes that were the basis of each phenotype. We used a data quality checklist to evaluate five domains systematically: conformance, completeness, concordance, plausibility, and temporality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most phenotype-defining source codes were mapped to Current Procedural Terminology 4, which is an EHR standard. All cohorts had low concept prevalence. Most bivariate correlations between concepts were weak (⍴ ≤ 0.5). The small number of biomarkers available for use limited our plausibility analysis. The median time between biopsy and surgery varied across cohorts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We identified multiple data completeness issues, which limited the fitness for use evaluation. Also, using the OMOP CDM procedure concepts and mappings presented challenges for our study. Variable amounts of missingness in OMOP CDM surgical oncology data may affect the fitness for use of cancer data. Further research is warranted to improve the quality of that data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51626,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"e2500078\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12240465/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI-25-00078\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI-25-00078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:癌症是美国发病率和死亡率的主要原因。将电子健康记录(EHR)数据映射到观察性医疗结果伙伴关系公共数据模型(OMOP CDM)可以使数据结构标准化,并允许多个数据库肿瘤学研究。然而,使用OMOP CDM进行的肿瘤研究数量一直很低。为了研究癌症对公众健康的影响与OMOP CDM临床癌症研究成果之间的差异,我们评估了“我们所有人”研究计划中五个外科肿瘤队列的数据质量:乳房切除术、前列腺切除术、结肠切除术、黑色素瘤切除术和肺癌切除术。方法:我们选择的程序代码是每个表型的基础。我们使用数据质量检查表系统地评估五个领域:一致性、完整性、一致性、合理性和时间性。结果:大多数表型定义源代码被映射到现行程序术语4,这是一个电子病历标准。所有队列的概念患病率都很低。大多数概念之间的双变量相关性较弱(≤0.5)。可供使用的生物标志物数量少,限制了我们的合理性分析。活检和手术之间的中位时间因队列而异。结论:我们发现了多个数据完整性问题,这限制了使用评估的适合性。此外,使用OMOP CDM过程的概念和映射为我们的研究提出了挑战。OMOP CDM手术肿瘤学数据中不同数量的缺失可能会影响癌症数据使用的适应性。为了提高数据的质量,有必要进行进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the Data Quality Dimensions of Surgical Oncology Cohorts in the All of Us Research Program.

Purpose: Cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Mapping electronic health record (EHR) data to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP CDM) may standardize data structure and allow for multiple database oncology studies. However, the number of oncology studies produced with the OMOP CDM has been low. To investigate the discrepancy between the public health impact of cancer and the output of OMOP CDM clinical cancer studies, we evaluated (EHR) data quality of five surgical oncology cohorts in the All of Us Research Program: mastectomy, prostatectomy, colectomy, melanoma excision, and lung cancer resection.

Methods: We selected procedure codes that were the basis of each phenotype. We used a data quality checklist to evaluate five domains systematically: conformance, completeness, concordance, plausibility, and temporality.

Results: Most phenotype-defining source codes were mapped to Current Procedural Terminology 4, which is an EHR standard. All cohorts had low concept prevalence. Most bivariate correlations between concepts were weak (⍴ ≤ 0.5). The small number of biomarkers available for use limited our plausibility analysis. The median time between biopsy and surgery varied across cohorts.

Conclusion: We identified multiple data completeness issues, which limited the fitness for use evaluation. Also, using the OMOP CDM procedure concepts and mappings presented challenges for our study. Variable amounts of missingness in OMOP CDM surgical oncology data may affect the fitness for use of cancer data. Further research is warranted to improve the quality of that data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.80%
发文量
190
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信