Pedro L Teixeira1, Wei-Qi Wei1, Robert M Cronin1, Huan Mo1, Jacob P VanHouten1,2, Robert J Carroll1, Eric LaRose3, Lisa A Bastarache1, S Trent Rosenbloom1,4, Todd L Edwards1, Dan M Roden4,5, Thomas A Lasko1, Richard A Dart6, Anne M Nikolai3, Peggy L Peissig3, Joshua C Denny7,4. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA. 3. Biomedical Informatics Research Center, Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, 1000 N Oak Ave - ML8, Marshfield, WI 54449, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA. 5. Department of Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA. 6. Center for Human Genetics, Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, 1000 N Oak Ave-MLR, Marshfield, WI 54449, USA. 7. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA josh.denny@vanderbilt.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Phenotyping algorithms applied to electronic health record (EHR) data enable investigators to identify large cohorts for clinical and genomic research. Algorithm development is often iterative, depends on fallible investigator intuition, and is time- and labor-intensive. We developed and evaluated 4 types of phenotyping algorithms and categories of EHR information to identify hypertensive individuals and controls and provide a portable module for implementation at other sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the EHRs of 631 individuals followed at Vanderbilt for hypertension status. We developed features and phenotyping algorithms of increasing complexity. Input categories included International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD9) codes, medications, vital signs, narrative-text search results, and Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) concepts extracted using natural language processing (NLP). We developed a module and tested portability by replicating 10 of the best-performing algorithms at the Marshfield Clinic. RESULTS: Random forests using billing codes, medications, vitals, and concepts had the best performance with a median area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.976. Normalized sums of all 4 categories also performed well (0.959 AUC). The best non-NLP algorithm combined normalized ICD9 codes, medications, and blood pressure readings with a median AUC of 0.948. Blood pressure cutoffs or ICD9 code counts alone had AUCs of 0.854 and 0.908, respectively. Marshfield Clinic results were similar. CONCLUSION: This work shows that billing codes or blood pressure readings alone yield good hypertension classification performance. However, even simple combinations of input categories improve performance. The most complex algorithms classified hypertension with excellent recall and precision.
OBJECTIVE: Phenotyping algorithms applied to electronic health record (EHR) data enable investigators to identify large cohorts for clinical and genomic research. Algorithm development is often iterative, depends on fallible investigator intuition, and is time- and labor-intensive. We developed and evaluated 4 types of phenotyping algorithms and categories of EHR information to identify hypertensive individuals and controls and provide a portable module for implementation at other sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the EHRs of 631 individuals followed at Vanderbilt for hypertension status. We developed features and phenotyping algorithms of increasing complexity. Input categories included International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD9) codes, medications, vital signs, narrative-text search results, and Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) concepts extracted using natural language processing (NLP). We developed a module and tested portability by replicating 10 of the best-performing algorithms at the Marshfield Clinic. RESULTS: Random forests using billing codes, medications, vitals, and concepts had the best performance with a median area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.976. Normalized sums of all 4 categories also performed well (0.959 AUC). The best non-NLP algorithm combined normalized ICD9 codes, medications, and blood pressure readings with a median AUC of 0.948. Blood pressure cutoffs or ICD9 code counts alone had AUCs of 0.854 and 0.908, respectively. Marshfield Clinic results were similar. CONCLUSION: This work shows that billing codes or blood pressure readings alone yield good hypertension classification performance. However, even simple combinations of input categories improve performance. The most complex algorithms classified hypertension with excellent recall and precision.
Authors: Joshua C Denny; Randolph A Miller; Lemuel Russell Waitman; Mark A Arrieta; Joshua F Peterson Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2008-10-19 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Hua Xu; Shane P Stenner; Son Doan; Kevin B Johnson; Lemuel R Waitman; Joshua C Denny Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: D M Roden; J M Pulley; M A Basford; G R Bernard; E W Clayton; J R Balser; D R Masys Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Joshua C Denny; Anderson Spickard; Kevin B Johnson; Neeraja B Peterson; Josh F Peterson; Randolph A Miller Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Elena Birman-Deych; Amy D Waterman; Yan Yan; David S Nilasena; Martha J Radford; Brian F Gage Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jeffrey A Cutler; Paul D Sorlie; Michael Wolz; Thomas Thom; Larry E Fields; Edward J Roccella Journal: Hypertension Date: 2008-10-13 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Loreen Straub; Joshua J Gagne; Judith C Maro; Michael D Nguyen; Nicolas Beaulieu; Jeffrey S Brown; Adee Kennedy; Margaret Johnson; Adam Wright; Li Zhou; Shirley V Wang Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Chan Gao; Run Fan; Gregory D Ayers; Ayush Giri; Kindred Harris; Ravi Atreya; Pedro L Teixeira; Nitin B Jain Journal: PM R Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Sameer Prasada; Adovich Rivera; Arvind Nishtala; Anna E Pawlowski; Arjun Sinha; Joshua D Bundy; Simran A Chadha; Faraz S Ahmad; Sadiya S Khan; Chad Achenbach; Frank J Palella; Rosalind Ramsey-Goldman; Yvonne C Lee; Jonathan I Silverberg; Babafemi O Taiwo; Sanjiv J Shah; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Matthew J Feinstein Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Lisa Bastarache; Jacob J Hughey; Jeffrey A Goldstein; Julie A Bastraache; Satya Das; Neil Charles Zaki; Chenjie Zeng; Leigh Anne Tang; Dan M Roden; Joshua C Denny Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Matthew R Alexander; Allison E Norlander; Fernando Elijovich; Ravi V Atreya; Amadou Gaye; Juan S Gnecco; Cheryl L Laffer; Cristi L Galindo; Meena S Madhur Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Lu Chen; Susan M Shortreed; Thomas Easterling; T Craig Cheetham; Kristi Reynolds; Lyndsay A Avalos; Aruna Kamineni; Victoria Holt; Romain Neugebauer; Mary Akosile; Nerissa Nance; Zoe Bider-Canfield; Rod L Walker; Sylvia E Badon; Sascha Dublin Journal: Pregnancy Hypertens Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 2.899