Cited by 112Machine Learning in HealthcareMedical Coding and Health InformationElectronic Health Records Systems

Impact of data fragmentation across healthcare centers on the accuracy of a high-throughput clinical phenotyping algorithm for specifying subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Open access
Wei, Wei-Qi, Leibson, Cynthia L, Ransom, Jeanine E, Kho, Abel N, Caraballo, Pedro J, Chai, High Seng, Yawn, Barbara P, Pacheco, Jennifer A +1 more·2012·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate data fragmentation across healthcare centers with regard to the accuracy of a high-throughput clinical phenotyping (HTCP) algorithm developed to differentiate (1) patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and (2) patients with no diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This population-based study identified all Olmsted County, Minnesota residents in 2007. We used provider-linked electronic medical record data from the two healthcare centers that provide >95% of all care to County residents (ie, Olmsted Medical Center and Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, USA). Subjects were limited to residents with one or more encounter January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2007 at both healthcare centers. DM-relevant data on diagnoses, laboratory results, and medication from both centers were obtained during this period. The algorithm was first executed using data from both centers (ie, the gold standard) and then from Mayo Clinic alone. Positive predictive values and false-negative rates were calculated, and the McNemar test was used to compare categorization when data from the Mayo Clinic alone were used with the gold standard. Age and sex were compared between true-positive and false-negative subjects with T2DM. Statistical significance was accepted as p<0.05. RESULTS: With data from both medical centers, 765 subjects with T2DM (4256 non-DM subjects) were identified. When single-center data were used, 252 T2DM subjects (1573 non-DM subjects) were missed; an additional false-positive 27 T2DM subjects (215 non-DM subjects) were identified. The positive predictive values and false-negative rates were 95.0% (513/540) and 32.9% (252/765), respectively, for T2DM subjects and 92.6% (2683/2898) and 37.0% (1573/4256), respectively, for non-DM subjects. Age and sex distribution differed between true-positive (mean age 62.1; 45% female) and false-negative (mean age 65.0; 56.0% female) T2DM subjects. CONCLUSION: The findings show that application of an HTCP algorithm using data from a single medical center contributes to misclassification. These findings should be considered carefully by researchers when developing and executing HTCP algorithms.

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 · 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000597

Cites

3 of 3 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?

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: 23

  1. Wilke RA, Xu H, Denny JC, et al. The emerging role of electronic medical records in pharmacogenomics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011;89:379e86.
  2. Wilke RA, Berg RL, Peissig P, et al. Use of an electronic medical record for the identification of research subjects with diabetes mellitus. Clin Med Res 2007;5:1e7.
  3. Wilke RA, Berg RL, Linneman JG, et al. Characterization of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering efficacy for atorvastatin in a population-based DNA biorepository. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2008;103:354e9.
  4. McCarty CA, Chisholm RL, Chute CG, et al. The eMERGE Network: a consortium of biorepositories linked to electronic medical records data for conducting genomic studies. BMC Med Genomics 2011;4:13.
  5. Liao KP, Cai T, Gainer V, et al. Electronic medical records for discovery research in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010;62:1120e7.
  6. Bourgeois FC, Olson KL, Mandl KD. Patients treated at multiple acute health care facilities: quantifying information fragmentation. Arch Intern Med 2010;170:1989e95.
  7. Smith PC, Araya-Guerra R, Bublitz C, et al. Missing clinical information during primary care visits. JAMA 2005;293:565e71.
  8. Elder NC, Hickner J. Missing clinical information: the system is down. JAMA 2005;293:617e19.
  9. Elder NC, Vonder Meulen M, Cassedy A. The identification of medical errors by family physicians during outpatient visits. Ann Fam Med 2004;2:125e9.
  10. Cwinn MA, Forster AJ, Cwinn AA, et al. Prevalence of information gaps for seniors transferred from nursing homes to the emergency department. CJEM 2009;11:462e71.
  11. Stiell A, Forster AJ, Stiell IG, et al. Prevalence of information gaps in the emergency department and the effect on patient outcomes. CMAJ 2003;169:1023e8.
  12. Cox A, Rutter M, Yule B, et al. Bias resulting from missing information: some epidemiological findings. Br J Prev Soc Med 1977;31:131e6.
  13. Saaddine JB, Engelgau MM, Beckles GL, et al. A diabetes report card for the United States: quality of care in the 1990s. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:565e74.
  14. Kho AN, Hayes MG, Rasmussen-Torvik L, et al. Use of diverse electronic medical record systems to identify genetic risk for type 2 diabetes within a genome wide association study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012;19:212e18.
  15. Kashner TM. Agreement between administrative files and written medical records: a case of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Med Care 1998;36:1324e36.
  16. Hebert PL, Geiss LS, Tierney EF, et al. Identifying persons with diabetes using medicare claims data. Am J Med Qual 1999;14:270e7.
  17. St Sauver JL, Grossardt BR, Yawn BP, et al. Use of a medical records linkage system to enumerate a dynamic population over time: the Rochester epidemiology project. Am J Epidemiol 2011;173:1059e68.
  18. Martinez M, Khlat M, Leboyer M, et al. Performance of linkage analysis under misclassification error when the genetic model is unknown. Genet Epidemiol 1989;6:253e8.
  19. Tan PN, Steinbach M, Kumar V. Introduction to Data Mining. Boston: Pearson Addison Wesley, 2006.
  20. DeLisle S, South B, Anthony JA, et al. Combining free text and structured electronic medical record entries to detect acute respiratory infections. PLoS One 2010;5:e13377.
  21. Turchin A, Kohane IS, Pendergrass ML. Identification of patients with diabetes from the text of physician notes in the electronic medical record. Diabetes Care 2005;28:1794e5.
  22. O'Malley KJ, Cook KF, Price MD, et al. Measuring diagnoses: ICD code accuracy. Health Serv Res 2005;40:1620e39.
  23. Leibson CL, O'Brien PC, Atkinson E, et al. Relative contributions of incidence and survival to increasing prevalence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus: a population-based study. Am J Epidemiol 1997;146:12e22. PAGE fraction trail=5.5

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wei, W.-Q., Leibson, C. L., Ransom, J. E., Kho, A. N., Caraballo, P. J., Chai, H. S., Yawn, B. P., Pacheco, J. A., & Chute, C. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Olmsted Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Chute, Christopher G
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2012-03
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
219-224
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W169580636
Cited by
112
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 2
FWCI
9.13
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)
Funders
  • University of Minnesota
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (U01HG004599, U01 HG04599)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, clinical phenotyping, data fragmentation, electronic health records, misclassification, positive predictive value, false negative rate, Olmsted County, Minnesota, Mayo Clinic, health information exchange
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Ambulatory Care Facilities, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diagnostic Errors, Female, Humans, Male, Minnesota, Phenotype, Predictive Value of Tests, Age Distribution, Sex Distribution

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