PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of insufficient longitudinal data on the accuracy of a high-throughput clinical phenotyping (HTCP) algorithm for identifying (1) patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and (2) patients with no diabetes. METHODS: Retrospective study conducted at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Eligible subjects were Olmsted County residents with ≥1 Mayo Clinic encounter in each of three time periods: (1) 2007, (2) from 1997 through 2006, and (3) before 1997 (N = 54,283). Diabetes relevant electronic medical record (EMR) data about diagnoses, laboratories, and medications were used. We employed the HTCP algorithm to categorize individuals as T2DM cases and non-diabetes controls. Considering the full 11 years (1997-2007) as the gold standard, we compared gold-standard categorizations with those using data for 10 subsequent intervals, ranging from 1998-2007 (10-year data) to 2007 (1-year data). Positive predictive values (PPVs) and false-negative rates (FNRs) were calculated. McNemar tests were used to determine whether categorizations using shorter time periods differed from the gold standard. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: We identified 2770 T2DM cases and 21,005 controls when the algorithm was applied using 11-year data. Using 2007 data alone, PPVs and FNRs, respectively, were 70% and 25% for case identification and 59% and 67% for control identification. All time frames differed significantly from the gold standard, except for the 10-year period. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of the algorithm reduced remarkably as data were limited to shorter observation periods. This impact should be considered carefully when designing/executing HTCP algorithms.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of insufficient longitudinal data on the accuracy of a high-throughput clinical phenotyping (HTCP) algorithm for identifying (1) patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and (2) patients with no diabetes. METHODS: Retrospective study conducted at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Eligible subjects were Olmsted County residents with ≥1 Mayo Clinic encounter in each of three time periods: (1) 2007, (2) from 1997 through 2006, and (3) before 1997 (N = 54,283). Diabetes relevant electronic medical record (EMR) data about diagnoses, laboratories, and medications were used. We employed the HTCP algorithm to categorize individuals as T2DM cases and non-diabetes controls. Considering the full 11 years (1997-2007) as the gold standard, we compared gold-standard categorizations with those using data for 10 subsequent intervals, ranging from 1998-2007 (10-year data) to 2007 (1-year data). Positive predictive values (PPVs) and false-negative rates (FNRs) were calculated. McNemar tests were used to determine whether categorizations using shorter time periods differed from the gold standard. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: We identified 2770 T2DM cases and 21,005 controls when the algorithm was applied using 11-year data. Using 2007 data alone, PPVs and FNRs, respectively, were 70% and 25% for case identification and 59% and 67% for control identification. All time frames differed significantly from the gold standard, except for the 10-year period. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of the algorithm reduced remarkably as data were limited to shorter observation periods. This impact should be considered carefully when designing/executing HTCP algorithms.
Authors: Wei-Qi Wei; Cynthia L Leibson; Jeanine E Ransom; Abel N Kho; Pedro J Caraballo; High Seng Chai; Barbara P Yawn; Jennifer A Pacheco; Christopher G Chute Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Cynthia L Leibson; Demetrius M Maraganore; James H Bower; Jeanine E Ransom; Peter C O'brien; Walter A Rocca Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Rahul Pannala; Cynthia L Leibson; Kari G Rabe; Lawrence J Timmons; Jeanine Ransom; Mariza de Andrade; Gloria M Petersen; Suresh T Chari Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Sylvain DeLisle; Brett South; Jill A Anthony; Ericka Kalp; Adi Gundlapallli; Frank C Curriero; Greg E Glass; Matthew Samore; Trish M Perl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-10-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Russell A Wilke; Richard L Berg; Peggy Peissig; Terrie Kitchner; Bozana Sijercic; Catherine A McCarty; Daniel J McCarty Journal: Clin Med Res Date: 2007-03
Authors: Walter A Rocca; Lynne T Shuster; Brandon R Grossardt; Demetrius M Maraganore; Bobbie S Gostout; Yonas E Geda; L Joseph Melton Journal: Womens Health (Lond) Date: 2009-01
Authors: Wei-Qi Wei; Pedro L Teixeira; Huan Mo; Robert M Cronin; Jeremy L Warner; Joshua C Denny Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Rachel L Richesson; Shelley A Rusincovitch; Douglas Wixted; Bryan C Batch; Mark N Feinglos; Marie Lynn Miranda; W Ed Hammond; Robert M Califf; Susan E Spratt Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Abel N Kho; John P Cashy; Kathryn L Jackson; Adam R Pah; Satyender Goel; Jörn Boehnke; John Eric Humphries; Scott Duke Kominers; Bala N Hota; Shannon A Sims; Bradley A Malin; Dustin D French; Theresa L Walunas; David O Meltzer; Erin O Kaleba; Roderick C Jones; William L Galanter Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Tao Zheng; Wei Xie; Liling Xu; Xiaoying He; Ya Zhang; Mingrong You; Gong Yang; You Chen Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Robert Chen; Jimeng Sun; Robert S Dittus; Daniel Fabbri; Jacqueline Kirby; Cheryl L Laffer; Candace D McNaughton; Bradley Malin Journal: IEEE J Biomed Health Inform Date: 2016-01-04 Impact factor: 5.772
Authors: William R Hersh; Mark G Weiner; Peter J Embi; Judith R Logan; Philip R O Payne; Elmer V Bernstam; Harold P Lehmann; George Hripcsak; Timothy H Hartzog; James J Cimino; Joel H Saltz Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.983