Jie Xu1, Luke V Rasmussen2, Pamela L Shaw3, Guoqian Jiang4, Richard C Kiefer4, Huan Mo5, Jennifer A Pacheco6, Peter Speltz5, Qian Zhu7, Joshua C Denny5, Jyotishman Pathak4, William K Thompson8, Enid Montague9. 1. Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA jie.xu@northwestern.edu. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Galter Health Science Library, Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (NUCATS), Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Department of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. 6. Center for Genetic Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 7. Department of Information Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), Baltimore, MD, USA. 8. Center for Biomedical Research Informatics, NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, IL, USA. 9. Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review and evaluate available software tools for electronic health record-driven phenotype authoring in order to identify gaps and needs for future development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Candidate phenotype authoring tools were identified through (1) literature search in four publication databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus) and (2) a web search. A collection of tools was compiled and reviewed after the searches. A survey was designed and distributed to the developers of the reviewed tools to discover their functionalities and features. RESULTS: Twenty-four different phenotype authoring tools were identified and reviewed. Developers of 16 of these identified tools completed the evaluation survey (67% response rate). The surveyed tools showed commonalities but also varied in their capabilities in algorithm representation, logic functions, data support and software extensibility, search functions, user interface, and data outputs. DISCUSSION: Positive trends identified in the evaluation included: algorithms can be represented in both computable and human readable formats; and most tools offer a web interface for easy access. However, issues were also identified: many tools were lacking advanced logic functions for authoring complex algorithms; the ability to construct queries that leveraged un-structured data was not widely implemented; and many tools had limited support for plug-ins or external analytic software. CONCLUSIONS: Existing phenotype authoring tools could enable clinical researchers to work with electronic health record data more efficiently, but gaps still exist in terms of the functionalities of such tools. The present work can serve as a reference point for the future development of similar tools.
OBJECTIVE: To review and evaluate available software tools for electronic health record-driven phenotype authoring in order to identify gaps and needs for future development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Candidate phenotype authoring tools were identified through (1) literature search in four publication databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus) and (2) a web search. A collection of tools was compiled and reviewed after the searches. A survey was designed and distributed to the developers of the reviewed tools to discover their functionalities and features. RESULTS: Twenty-four different phenotype authoring tools were identified and reviewed. Developers of 16 of these identified tools completed the evaluation survey (67% response rate). The surveyed tools showed commonalities but also varied in their capabilities in algorithm representation, logic functions, data support and software extensibility, search functions, user interface, and data outputs. DISCUSSION: Positive trends identified in the evaluation included: algorithms can be represented in both computable and human readable formats; and most tools offer a web interface for easy access. However, issues were also identified: many tools were lacking advanced logic functions for authoring complex algorithms; the ability to construct queries that leveraged un-structured data was not widely implemented; and many tools had limited support for plug-ins or external analytic software. CONCLUSIONS: Existing phenotype authoring tools could enable clinical researchers to work with electronic health record data more efficiently, but gaps still exist in terms of the functionalities of such tools. The present work can serve as a reference point for the future development of similar tools.
Authors: Etienne De Clercq; Viviane Van Casteren; Pascale Jonckheer; Peter Burggraeve; Marie-France Lafontaine; Hans Vandenberghe; Vincent Lorant; Caroline Artoisenet; Karen Degroote Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2006
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Catherine A McCarty; Rex L Chisholm; Christopher G Chute; Iftikhar J Kullo; Gail P Jarvik; Eric B Larson; Rongling Li; Daniel R Masys; Marylyn D Ritchie; Dan M Roden; Jeffery P Struewing; Wendy A Wolf Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 3.063
Authors: Monica M Horvath; Shelley A Rusincovitch; Stephanie Brinson; Howard C Shang; Steve Evans; Jeffrey M Ferranti Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2014-07-19 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Newton Shydeo Brandão Miyoshi; Daniel Guariz Pinheiro; Wilson Araújo Silva; Joaquim Cezar Felipe Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Mary F Davis; Subramaniam Sriram; William S Bush; Joshua C Denny; Jonathan L Haines Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jeffrey W Pennington; Byron Ruth; Michael J Italia; Jeffrey Miller; Stacey Wrazien; Jennifer G Loutrel; E Bryan Crenshaw; Peter S White Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jejo D Koola; Sharon E Davis; Omar Al-Nimri; Sharidan K Parr; Daniel Fabbri; Bradley A Malin; Samuel B Ho; Michael E Matheny Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Ron C Li; Trit Garg; Tony Cun; Lisa Shieh; Gomathi Krishnan; Daniel Fang; Jonathan H Chen Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jette Henderson; Huan He; Bradley A Malin; Joshua C Denny; Abel N Kho; Joydeep Ghosh; Joyce C Ho Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Jennifer A Pacheco; Luke V Rasmussen; Richard C Kiefer; Thomas R Campion; Peter Speltz; Robert J Carroll; Sarah C Stallings; Huan Mo; Monika Ahuja; Guoqian Jiang; Eric R LaRose; Peggy L Peissig; Ning Shang; Barbara Benoit; Vivian S Gainer; Kenneth Borthwick; Kathryn L Jackson; Ambrish Sharma; Andy Yizhou Wu; Abel N Kho; Dan M Roden; Jyotishman Pathak; Joshua C Denny; William K Thompson Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Pascal S Brandt; Jennifer A Pacheco; Prakash Adekkanattu; Evan T Sholle; Sajjad Abedian; Daniel J Stone; David M Knaack; Jie Xu; Zhenxing Xu; Yifan Peng; Natalie C Benda; Fei Wang; Yuan Luo; Guoqian Jiang; Jyotishman Pathak; Luke V Rasmussen Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Tiffany Pellathy; Melissa Saul; Gilles Clermont; Artur W Dubrawski; Michael R Pinsky; Marilyn Hravnak Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 1.977
Authors: Elsa Negro-Calduch; Natasha Azzopardi-Muscat; Ramesh S Krishnamurthy; David Novillo-Ortiz Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 4.046