Cited by 12Machine Learning in HealthcareElectronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Predicting pharmacotherapeutic outcomes for type 2 diabetes: An evaluation of three approaches to leveraging electronic health record data from multiple sources

Open access
Tarumi, Shinji, Takeuchi, Wataru, Qi, Rong, Ning, Xia, Ruppert, Laura, Ban, Hideyuki, Robertson, Daniel H., Schleyer, Titus +1 more·2022·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Electronic health record (EHR) data are increasingly used to develop prediction models to support clinical care, including the care of patients with common chronic conditions. A key challenge for individual healthcare systems in developing such models is that they may not be able to achieve the desired degree of robustness using only their own data. A potential solution-combining data from multiple sources-faces barriers such as the need for data normalization and concerns about sharing patient information across institutions. To address these challenges, we evaluated three alternative approaches to using EHR data from multiple healthcare systems in predicting the outcome of pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus(T2DM). Two of the three approaches, named Selecting Better (SB) and Weighted Average(WA), allowed the data to remain within institutional boundaries by using pre-built prediction models; the third, named Combining Data (CD), aggregated raw patient data into a single dataset. The prediction performance and prediction coverage of the resulting models were compared to single-institution models to help judge the relative value of adding external data and to determine the best method to generate optimal models for clinical decision support. The results showed that models using WA and CD achieved higher prediction performance than single-institution models for common treatment patterns. CD outperformed the other two approaches in prediction coverage, which we defined as the number of treatment patterns predicted with an Area Under Curve of 0.70 or more. We concluded that 1) WA is an effective option for improving prediction performance for common treatment patterns when data cannot be shared across institutional boundaries and 2) CD is the most effective approach when such sharing is possible, especially for increasing the range of treatment patterns that can be predicted to support clinical decision making.

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.2022.104001

Cites

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?

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 34 · Cited by 12

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. B.A. Goldstein, A.M. Navar, M.J. Pencina, J.P. Ioannidis, Opportunities and challenges in developing risk prediction models with electronic health records data: a systematic review, J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 24 (1) (2017) 198-208, https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw042. · DOI · Paper page
  2. N.G. Weiskopf, G. Hripcsak, S. Swaminathan, C. Weng, Defining and measuring completeness of electronic health records for secondary use, J. Biomed. Inform. 46 (5) (2013 Oct) 830-836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2013.06.010. · DOI · Paper page
  3. E. Rapsomaniki, A. Shah, P. Perel, S. Denaxas, J. George, O. Nicholas, R. Udumyan, G.S. Feder, A.D. Hingorani, A. Timmis, L. Smeeth, H. Hemingway, Prognostic models for stable coronary artery disease based on electronic health record cohort of 102,023 patients, Eur. Heart J. 35 (13) (2014) 844-852, https://doi.org/ 10.1093/eurheartj/eht533. · DOI
  4. D. Kotz, C.R. Simpson, W. Viechtbauer, O.C. van Schayck, A. Sheikh, Development and validation of a model to predict the 10-year risk of general practitioner- recorded COPD, NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 24 (2014) 14011, https://doi.org/ 10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.11. · DOI
  5. J. Hippisley-Cox, C. Coupland, Predicting risk of upper gastrointestinal bleed and intracranial bleed with anticoagulants: cohort study to derive and validate the QBleed scores, BMJ 349 (jul28 14) (2014), https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4606. · DOI
  6. M.J. Rothman, S.I. Rothman, J. Beals 4th, Development and validation of a continuous measure of patient condition using the electronic medical record, J. Biomed. Inform. 46 (5) (2013) 837-848, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbi.2013.06.011. · DOI
  7. F. Zerka, S. Barakat, S. Walsh, M. Bogowicz, R.T.H. Leijenaar, A. Jochems, B. Miraglio, D. Townend, P. Lambin, Systematic review of privacy-preserving distributed machine learning from federated databases in health care, JCO Clin. Cancer Inform. (4) (2020) 184-200, https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI.19.00047. · DOI
  8. T.M. Deist, A. Jochems, J. van Soest, G. Nalbantov, C. Oberije, S. Walsh, M. Eble, P. Bulens, P. Coucke, W. Dries, A. Dekker, P. Lambin, Infrastructure and distributed learning methodology for privacy-preserving multi-centric rapid learning health care: euroCAT, Clin. Transl. Radiat. Oncol. 4 (2017) 24-31, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ctro.2016.12.004. · DOI
  9. A. Jochems, T.M. Deist, J. van Soest, M. Eble, P. Bulens, P. Coucke, W. Dries, P. Lambin, A. Dekker, Distributed learning: developing a predictive model based on data from multiple hospitals without data leaving the hospital-a real life proof of concept, Radiother. Oncol. 121 (3) (2016) 459-467, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. radonc.2016.10.002. · DOI
  10. A. Jochems, T.M. Deist, I. El Naqa, M. Kessler, C. Mayo, J. Reeves, S. Jolly, M. Matuszak, R. Ten Haken, J. van Soest, C. Oberije, C. Faivre-Finn, G. Price, D. de Ruysscher, P. Lambin, A. Dekker, Developing and validating a survival prediction model for NSCLC patients through distributed learning across 3 countries, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 99 (2) (2017) 344-352, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijrobp.2017.04.021. · DOI
  11. L. Tagliaferri, C. Gobitti, G.F. Colloca, L. Boldrini, E. Farina, C. Furlan, F. Paiar, F. Vianello, M. Basso, L. Cerizza, F. Monari, G. Simontacchi, M.A. Gambacorta, J. Lenkowicz, N. Dinapoli, V. Lanzotti, R. Mazzarotto, E. Russi, M. Mangoni, A new standardized data collection system for interdisciplinary thyroid cancer management: thyroid COBRA, Eur. J. Intern. Med. 53 (2018) 73-78, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ejim.2018.02.012. · DOI
  12. Y.P.H. Chin, W. Song, C.E. Lien, C.H. Yoon, W.-C. Wang, J. Liu, P.A. Nguyen, Y. T. Feng, L.i. Zhou, Y.C.J. Li, D.W. Bates, Assessing the international transferability of a machine learning model for detecting medication error in the general internal medicine clinic: multicenter preliminary validation study, JMIR Med. Inform. 9 (1) (2021) e23454, https://doi.org/10.2196/23454. · DOI
  13. P. Patil, G. Parmigiani, Training replicable predictors in multiple studies, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115 (11) (2018) 2578-2583, https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1708283115. · DOI
  14. J.A. Park, M.D. Sung, H.H. Kim, Y.R. Park, Weight-Based Framework for Predictive Modeling of Multiple Databases With Noniterative Communication Without Data Sharing: Privacy-Protecting Analytic Method for Multi-Institutional Studies, JMIR Med. Inform. 9 (4) (2021). Published 2021 Apr 5. http://doi.org/10.2196/21043. · DOI
  15. P. Saeedi, I. Petersohn, P. Salpea, B. Malanda, S. Karuranga, N. Unwin, S. Colagiuri, L. Guariguata, A.A. Motala, K. Ogurtsova, et al., Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 157 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30186-9. · DOI · Paper page
  16. S.V. Edelman, W.H. Polonsky, Type 2 diabetes in the real world: the elusive nature of glycemic control, Diabetes Care 40 (11) (2017) 1425-1432, https://doi.org/ 10.2337/dc16-1974. · DOI
  17. K. Khunti, M.B. Gomes, S. Pocock, M.V. Shestakova, S. Pintat, P. Fenici, N. Hammar, J. Medina, Therapeutic inertia in the treatment of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review, Diabetes Obes. Metab. 20 (2) (2018) 427-437, https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.13088. · DOI
  18. J. Okemah, J. Peng, M. Quiñones, Addressing clinical inertia in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review, Adv. Ther. 35 (11) (2018) 1735-1745.
  19. G. Reach, V. Pechtner, R. Gentilella, A. Corcos, A. Ceriello, Clinical inertia and its impact on treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, Diabetes Metab. 43 (6) (2017) 501-511, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-018- 0819-5. · DOI · Paper page
  20. K. Khunti, D. Millar-Jones, Clinical inertia to insulin initiation and intensification in the UK: a focused literature review, Prim Care Diabetes. 11 (1) (2017) 3-12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2016.09.003. · DOI
  21. C.J. McDonald, J.M. Overhage, M. Barnes, G. Schadow, L. Blevins, P.R. Dexter, B. Mamlin, The Indiana network for patient care: a working local health information infrastructure-an example of a working infrastructure collaboration that links data from five health systems and hundreds of millions of entries, Health Aff. (Millwood). 24 (5) (2005) 1214-1220, https://doi.org/10.1377/ hlthaff.24.5.1214. · DOI · Paper page
  22. B. Dixon, (Ed.), Health information exchange: navigating and managing a network of health information systems. Elsevier Academic Press; 2016. 376 p. http://doi. org/10.1016/C2014-0-03433-8. · DOI
  23. J. Cohen, Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edition, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988.
  24. H. Cramér, Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Princeton, Press, Princeton, NJ, 1946.
  25. S. Tarumi, W. Takeuchi, G. Chalkidis, et al., Leveraging artificial intelligence to improve chronic disease care: methods and application to pharmacotherapy decision support for type-2 diabetes mellitus, Methods Inf. Med., 60 (S 01) (2021) e32-e43, http://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1728757. · DOI · Paper page
  26. S.R. Künzel, J.S. Sekhon, P.J. Bickel, B. Yu, Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116 (10) (2019) 4156-4165, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804597116. · DOI
  27. H. Drucker, C.J.C. Burges, L. Kaufman, A. Smola, V. Vapnik, Support vector regression machines, Adv. Neural Inf. Process Syst. 9 (1997) 155-161.
  28. D.R. Cox, The regression analysis of binary sequences (with discussion), J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B 20 (1958) 215-242, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1958. tb00292.x. · DOI

Authors
Tarumi, S., Takeuchi, W., Qi, R., Ning, X., Ruppert, L., Ban, H., Robertson, D. H., Schleyer, T., & Kawamoto, K.
Affiliations
  • Hitachi (Japan) (JP)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
  • Indiana Biosciences Research Institute (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-05
Volume
129
Pages
104001
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4210468478
Cited by
12
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Hitachi Ltd
  • Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (UL1TR002529)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  • Lilly Endowment Inc
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, electronic health records, external validation, prediction model performance, prediction coverage, clinical decision support, data normalization, treatment patterns
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Chronic Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, 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