Cited by 25Electronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health

Biomedical informatics advancing the national health agenda: the AMIA 2015 year-in-review in clinical and consumer informatics

Open access
Roberts, Kirk, Boland, Mary Regina, Pruinelli, Lisiane, Dcruz, Jina, Berry, Andrew, Georgsson, Mattias, Hazen, Rebecca, Sarmiento, Raymond F +4 more·2017·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

The field of biomedical informatics experienced a productive 2015 in terms of research. In order to highlight the accomplishments of that research, elicit trends, and identify shortcomings at a macro level, a 19-person team conducted an extensive review of the literature in clinical and consumer informatics. The result of this process included a year-in-review presentation at the American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium and a written report (see supplemental data). Key findings are detailed in the report and summarized here. This article organizes the clinical and consumer health informatics research from 2015 under 3 themes: the electronic health record (EHR), the learning health system (LHS), and consumer engagement. Key findings include the following: (1) There are significant advances in establishing policies for EHR feature implementation, but increased interoperability is necessary for these to gain traction. (2) Decision support systems improve practice behaviors, but evidence of their impact on clinical outcomes is still lacking. (3) Progress in natural language processing (NLP) suggests that we are approaching but have not yet achieved truly interactive NLP systems. (4) Prediction models are becoming more robust but remain hampered by the lack of interoperable clinical data records. (5) Consumers can and will use mobile applications for improved engagement, yet EHR integration remains elusive.

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 · 10.1093/jamia/ocw103

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • ML methods enable the development of AI applications that facilitate the discovery of previously unrecognized patterns in the data without the need to specify decision rules for each specific task or to account for complex interactions among input features. Therefore, ML has become the preferred framework for building AI utilities.

    “In summary, ML methods enable the development of AI applications that facilitate the discovery of previously unrecognized patterns in the data without the need to specify decision rules for each specific task or to account for complex interactions among input features. Therefore, ML has become the preferred framework for building AI utilities.34”

    From Artificial intelligence in diabetes management: Advancements, opportunities, and challenges (2023) · cites this paper as [34]

    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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]1. Masys D. AMIA Informatics Years in Review. http://faculty.washington.edu/dmasys/YearInReview/. Accessed 13 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
  2. [2]2. Hersh W, Ash J. AMIA Annual Symposium 2014 Year in Review. http://skynet.ohsu.edu/∼hersh/yearinreview2014.html. Accessed 13 July 2016. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roberts, K., Boland, M. R., Pruinelli, L., Dcruz, J., Berry, A., Georgsson, M., Hazen, R., Sarmiento, R. F., Backonja, U., Yu, K.-H., Jiang, Y., & Brennan, P. F.
Affiliations
  • United States National Library of Medicine (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Blekinge Institute of Technology (SE)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Corresponding author
Roberts, Kirk
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2016-08-07
Volume
24
Issue
e1
Pages
e185-e190
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2490973085
Cited by
25
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3
FWCI
0.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Washington Tacoma Digital Commons (University of Washington Tacoma) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • US National Library of Medicine (1K99LM012104)
  • University of Washington
  • intramural research program (T15LM00707, T15LM007442)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Keywords
clinical informatics, consumer health informatics, electronic health records, learning health systems, customer engagement, clinical decision support, natural language processing, clinical prediction model, EHR interoperability, mobile health apps
MeSH terms
Consumer Health Informatics, Humans, Medical Informatics, Patient Participation, Societies, Medical, United States, Public Health Informatics, Meaningful Use

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