The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Development and Validation of a High‐Quality Composite Real‐World Mortality Endpoint
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To create a high‐quality electronic health record (EHR)–derived mortality dataset for retrospective and prospective real‐world evidence generation. Data Sources/Study Setting: Oncology EHR data, supplemented with external commercial and US Social Security Death Index data, benchmarked to the National Death Index (NDI). Study Design: We developed a recent, linkable, high‐quality mortality variable amalgamated from multiple data sources to supplement EHR data, benchmarked against the highest completeness U.S. mortality data, the NDI. Data quality of the mortality variable version 2.0 is reported here. Principal Findings: For advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer, sensitivity of mortality information improved from 66 percent in EHR structured data to 91 percent in the composite dataset, with high date agreement compared to the NDI. For advanced melanoma, metastatic colorectal cancer, and metastatic breast cancer, sensitivity of the final variable was 85 to 88 percent. Kaplan–Meier survival analyses showed that improving mortality data completeness minimized overestimation of survival relative to NDI‐based estimates. Conclusions: For EHR‐derived data to yield reliable real‐world evidence, it needs to be of known and sufficiently high quality. Considering the impact of mortality data completeness on survival endpoints, we highlight the importance of data quality assessment and advocate benchmarking to the NDI.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Singal, G., Miller, P. G., Agarwala, V., Li, G., Kaushik, G., Backenroth, D., Gossai, A., Frampton, G. M., Torres, A. Z., Lehnert, E. M., et al. (2019) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.3241 · Cited by 549
Self-citationReal-world data: A brief review of the methods, applications, challenges and opportunities
Liu, F., & Panagiotakos, D. (2022) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-022-01768-6 · Cited by 496
Ma, X., Long, L., Moon, S., Adamson, B. J. S., & Baxi, S. S. (2020) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2020.03.16.20037143 · Cited by 353
Evaluating eligibility criteria of oncology trials using real-world data and AI
Liu, R., Rizzo, S., Whipple, S., Pal, N., Pineda, A. L., Lu, M., Arnieri, B., Lu, Y., Capra, W., Copping, R., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03430-5 · Cited by 322
Self-citationPrevalence of Missing Data in the National Cancer Database and Association with Overall Survival
Yang, D. X., Khera, R., Miccio, J. A., Jairam, V., Chang, E., Yu, J. B., Park, H. S., Krumholz, H. M., & Aneja, S. (2021) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1793 · Cited by 135
Metadata
- Authors
- Curtis, M. D., Griffith, S. D., Tucker, M., Taylor, M. D., Capra, W. B., Carrigan, G., Holzman, B., Torres, A. Z., You, P., Arnieri, B., & Abernethy, A. P.
- Venue
- Health Services Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-05-14
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 4460-4476
- ISSN
- 0017-9124 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-6773
- OpenAlex
- W2804210712
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 29.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development and Validation of a High‐Quality Composite Real‐World Mortality Endpoint. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1475-6773.12872
- The paper
- Curtis, M. D., Griffith, S. D., Tucker, M., Taylor, M. D., Capra, W. B., Carrigan, G., Holzman, B., Torres, A. Z., You, P., Arnieri, B., & Abernethy, A. P. (2018). Development and Validation of a High‐Quality Composite Real‐World Mortality Endpoint. Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12872
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.