OBJECTIVE: To describe a collaborative approach for developing an electronic health record (EHR) phenotyping algorithm for drug-induced liver injury (DILI). METHODS: We analyzed types and causes of differences in DILI case definitions provided by two institutions-Columbia University and Mayo Clinic; harmonized two EHR phenotyping algorithms; and assessed the performance, measured by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, of the resulting algorithm at three institutions except that sensitivity was measured only at Columbia University. RESULTS: Although these sites had the same case definition, their phenotyping methods differed by selection of liver injury diagnoses, inclusion of drugs cited in DILI cases, laboratory tests assessed, laboratory thresholds for liver injury, exclusion criteria, and approaches to validating phenotypes. We reached consensus on a DILI phenotyping algorithm and implemented it at three institutions. The algorithm was adapted locally to account for differences in populations and data access. Implementations collectively yielded 117 algorithm-selected cases and 23 confirmed true positive cases. DISCUSSION: Phenotyping for rare conditions benefits significantly from pooling data across institutions. Despite the heterogeneity of EHRs and varied algorithm implementations, we demonstrated the portability of this algorithm across three institutions. The performance of this algorithm for identifying DILI was comparable with other computerized approaches to identify adverse drug events. CONCLUSIONS: Phenotyping algorithms developed for rare and complex conditions are likely to require adaptive implementation at multiple institutions. Better approaches are also needed to share algorithms. Early agreement on goals, data sources, and validation methods may improve the portability of the algorithms.
OBJECTIVE: To describe a collaborative approach for developing an electronic health record (EHR) phenotyping algorithm for drug-induced liver injury (DILI). METHODS: We analyzed types and causes of differences in DILI case definitions provided by two institutions-Columbia University and Mayo Clinic; harmonized two EHR phenotyping algorithms; and assessed the performance, measured by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, of the resulting algorithm at three institutions except that sensitivity was measured only at Columbia University. RESULTS: Although these sites had the same case definition, their phenotyping methods differed by selection of liver injury diagnoses, inclusion of drugs cited in DILI cases, laboratory tests assessed, laboratory thresholds for liver injury, exclusion criteria, and approaches to validating phenotypes. We reached consensus on a DILI phenotyping algorithm and implemented it at three institutions. The algorithm was adapted locally to account for differences in populations and data access. Implementations collectively yielded 117 algorithm-selected cases and 23 confirmed true positive cases. DISCUSSION: Phenotyping for rare conditions benefits significantly from pooling data across institutions. Despite the heterogeneity of EHRs and varied algorithm implementations, we demonstrated the portability of this algorithm across three institutions. The performance of this algorithm for identifying DILI was comparable with other computerized approaches to identify adverse drug events. CONCLUSIONS: Phenotyping algorithms developed for rare and complex conditions are likely to require adaptive implementation at multiple institutions. Better approaches are also needed to share algorithms. Early agreement on goals, data sources, and validation methods may improve the portability of the algorithms.
Authors: Katherine M Newton; Peggy L Peissig; Abel Ngo Kho; Suzette J Bielinski; Richard L Berg; Vidhu Choudhary; Melissa Basford; Christopher G Chute; Iftikhar J Kullo; Rongling Li; Jennifer A Pacheco; Luke V Rasmussen; Leslie Spangler; Joshua C Denny Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: A K Jha; G J Kuperman; J M Teich; L Leape; B Shea; E Rittenberg; E Burdick; D L Seger; M Vander Vliet; D W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 1998 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: M Isabel Lucena; Mariam Molokhia; Yufeng Shen; Thomas J Urban; Guruprasad P Aithal; Raúl J Andrade; Christopher P Day; Francisco Ruiz-Cabello; Peter T Donaldson; Camilla Stephens; Munir Pirmohamed; Manuel Romero-Gomez; Jose Maria Navarro; Robert J Fontana; Michael Miller; Max Groome; Emmanuelle Bondon-Guitton; Anita Conforti; Bruno H C Stricker; Alfonso Carvajal; Luisa Ibanez; Qun-Ying Yue; Michel Eichelbaum; Aris Floratos; Itsik Pe'er; Mark J Daly; David B Goldstein; John F Dillon; Matthew R Nelson; Paul B Watkins; Ann K Daly Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Thomas J Urban; Yufeng Shen; Andrew Stolz; Naga Chalasani; Robert J Fontana; James Rochon; Dongliang Ge; Kevin V Shianna; Ann K Daly; M Isabel Lucena; Matthew R Nelson; Mariam Molokhia; Guruprasad P Aithal; Aris Floratos; Itsik Pe'er; Jose Serrano; Herbert Bonkovsky; Timothy J Davern; William M Lee; Victor J Navarro; Jayant A Talwalkar; David B Goldstein; Paul B Watkins Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Curtis P Langlotz; Bibb Allen; Bradley J Erickson; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Keith Bigelow; Tessa S Cook; Adam E Flanders; Matthew P Lungren; David S Mendelson; Jeffrey D Rudie; Ge Wang; Krishna Kandarpa Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Vibhu Agarwal; Tanya Podchiyska; Juan M Banda; Veena Goel; Tiffany I Leung; Evan P Minty; Timothy E Sweeney; Elsie Gyang; Nigam H Shah Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Katherine N Cahill; Christina B Johns; Jing Cui; Paige Wickner; David W Bates; Tanya M Laidlaw; Patrick E Beeler Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 10.793