Cited by 91Machine Learning in HealthcareElectronic Health Records SystemsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Identifying and mitigating biases in EHR laboratory tests

Open access
Pivovarov, Rimma, Albers, David J., Sepulveda, Jorge L., Elhadad, Noémie·2014·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Electronic health record (EHR) data show promise for deriving new ways of modeling human disease states. Although EHR researchers often use numerical values of laboratory tests as features in disease models, a great deal of information is contained in the context within which a laboratory test is taken. For example, the same numerical value of a creatinine test has different interpretation for a chronic kidney disease patient and a patient with acute kidney injury. We study whether EHR research studies are subject to biased results and interpretations if laboratory measurements taken in different contexts are not explicitly separated. We show that the context of a laboratory test measurement can often be captured by the way the test is measured through time. We perform three tasks to study the properties of these temporal measurement patterns. In the first task, we confirm that laboratory test measurement patterns provide additional information to the stand-alone numerical value. The second task identifies three measurement pattern motifs across a set of 70 laboratory tests performed for over 14,000 patients. Of these, one motif exhibits properties that can lead to biased research results. In the third task, we demonstrate the potential for biased results on a specific example. We conduct an association study of lipase test values to acute pancreatitis. We observe a diluted signal when using only a lipase value threshold, whereas the full association is recovered when properly accounting for lipase measurements in different contexts (leveraging the lipase measurement patterns to separate the contexts). Aggregating EHR data without separating distinct laboratory test measurement patterns can intermix patients with different diseases, leading to the confounding of signals in large-scale EHR analyses. This paper presents a methodology for leveraging measurement frequency to identify and reduce laboratory test biases.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.03.016

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • CONCERN EWS's methodological choices, including robust modeling of temporal data patterns and use of nursing assessment and observational data, allowed it to have accurate and robust predictive power and sufficient lead time to alter a patient's clinical trajectory.

    “Several methodological choices allowed CONCERN EWS to have accurate and robust predictive power and sufficient lead time to alter a patient’s clinical trajectory as we observed in this trial, including: (1) robust modeling of temporal data patterns40–42 (for example, time of day, day of week and patient hospital day) for health care processes (for example, nurses’ surveillance and medication”

    From Real-time surveillance system for patient deterioration: a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial (2025) · cites this paper as [44]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • CONCERN EWS overcomes the limitations of physiological measurements by leveraging nursing surveillance patterns and an existing expert knowledge base.

    “By leveraging nursing surveillance patterns rather than physiological measures10,44, CONCERN EWS overcomes the limitations of physiological measurements8 and leverages an existing expert knowledge base: nurses’ autonomous decisions to take greater action and document more observations or notes than mandated by policy in direct response to concerning changes in a patient’s clinical state10,13.”

    From Real-time surveillance system for patient deterioration: a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial (2025) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Introduction says laboratory-test values alone cannot distinguish some disease states, and the Results (section 3.1) find additional information in test-ordering patterns. This supports a limitation of laboratory values, but the citation is attached to the broader phrase “limitations of physiological measurements”; the paper does not establish that broader claim. The sentence’s statements about CONCERN EWS and nursing surveillance are not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [21]Albers D Hripcsak G Estimation of time-delayed mutual information and bias for irregularly and sparsely sampled time-series arXiv 2011 PMC3332129 22536009
  2. [28]Cismondi F Fialho AS Vieira SM Reti SR Sousa JMC Finkelstein SN Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Artificial intelligence in medicine 2013 58 1 63 72 23428358

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pivovarov, R., Albers, D. J., Sepulveda, J. L., & Elhadad, N.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
51
Pages
24-34
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2152726215
Cited by
91
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3
FWCI
6.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1344668, 1144854)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01:LM06910, LM06910, R01LM006910, T15LM007079, R01LM010027)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
electronic health records, measurement frequency, temporal patterns, confounding, bias mitigation, lipase, acute pancreatitis, creatinine, measurement context, disease association studies
MeSH terms
Clinical Laboratory Information Systems, Data Interpretation, Statistical, New York, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Artifacts, Data Mining, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review