Literature DB >> 28943779

Accounting for misclassification in electronic health records-derived exposures using generalized linear finite mixture models.

Rebecca A Hubbard1, Eric Johnson1, Jessica Chubak1, Karen J Wernli1, Aruna Kamineni1, Andy Bogart1, Carolyn M Rutter1.   

Abstract

Exposures derived from electronic health records (EHR) may be misclassified, leading to biased estimates of their association with outcomes of interest. An example of this problem arises in the context of cancer screening where test indication, the purpose for which a test was performed, is often unavailable. This poses a challenge to understanding the effectiveness of screening tests because estimates of screening test effectiveness are biased if some diagnostic tests are misclassified as screening. Prediction models have been developed for a variety of exposure variables that can be derived from EHR, but no previous research has investigated appropriate methods for obtaining unbiased association estimates using these predicted probabilities. The full likelihood incorporating information on both the predicted probability of exposure-class membership and the association between the exposure and outcome of interest can be expressed using a finite mixture model. When the regression model of interest is a generalized linear model (GLM), the expectation-maximization algorithm can be used to estimate the parameters using standard software for GLMs. Using simulation studies, we compared the bias and efficiency of this mixture model approach to alternative approaches including multiple imputation and dichotomization of the predicted probabilities to create a proxy for the missing predictor. The mixture model was the only approach that was unbiased across all scenarios investigated. Finally, we explored the performance of these alternatives in a study of colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy. These findings have broad applicability in studies using EHR data where gold-standard exposures are unavailable and prediction models have been developed for estimating proxies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colorectal cancer; Electronic health records; Mixture model; Multiple imputation; Screening

Year:  2016        PMID: 28943779      PMCID: PMC5608281          DOI: 10.1007/s10742-016-0149-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol        ISSN: 1387-3741


  23 in total

1.  The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up.

Authors:  L Tabár; B Vitak; H H Chen; S W Duffy; M F Yen; C F Chiang; U B Krusemo; T Tot; R A Smith
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  The incidence and determinants of primary nonadherence with prescribed medication in primary care: a cohort study.

Authors:  Robyn Tamblyn; Tewodros Eguale; Allen Huang; Nancy Winslade; Pamela Doran
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Inconsistencies between self-reported ethnicity and ethnicity recorded in a health maintenance organization.

Authors:  Scarlett L Gomez; Jennifer L Kelsey; Sally L Glaser; Marion M Lee; Stephen Sidney
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.797

4.  Race and ethnicity: comparing medical records to self-reports.

Authors:  Carmen N West; Ann M Geiger; Sarah M Greene; Emily L Harris; In-Lu A Liu; Mary B Barton; Joann G Elmore; Sharon Rolnick; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Andrea Altschuler; Lisa J Herrinton; Suzanne W Fletcher; Karen M Emmons
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2005

5.  Predicting changes in hypertension control using electronic health records from a chronic disease management program.

Authors:  Jimeng Sun; Candace D McNaughton; Ping Zhang; Adam Perer; Aris Gkoulalas-Divanis; Joshua C Denny; Jacqueline Kirby; Thomas Lasko; Alexander Saip; Bradley A Malin
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  Improving case definition of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in electronic medical records using natural language processing: a novel informatics approach.

Authors:  Ashwin N Ananthakrishnan; Tianxi Cai; Guergana Savova; Su-Chun Cheng; Pei Chen; Raul Guzman Perez; Vivian S Gainer; Shawn N Murphy; Peter Szolovits; Zongqi Xia; Stanley Shaw; Susanne Churchill; Elizabeth W Karlson; Isaac Kohane; Robert M Plenge; Katherine P Liao
Journal:  Inflamm Bowel Dis       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 5.325

7.  Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014.

Authors:  Rebecca Siegel; Carol Desantis; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 508.702

8.  The use of screening colonoscopy for patients cared for by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Authors:  Hashem B El-Serag; Laura Petersen; Howard Hampel; Peter Richardson; Gregory Cooper
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2006-11-13

9.  Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-30       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test.

Authors:  O Kronborg; C Fenger; J Olsen; O D Jørgensen; O Søndergaard
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-30       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  5 in total

1.  ANALYSES OF PREVENTIVE CARE MEASURES WITH INCOMPLETE HISTORICAL DATA IN ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS: AN EXAMPLE FROM COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING.

Authors:  Yingye Zheng; Douglas A Corley; Chyke Doubeni; Ethan Halm; Susan M Shortreed; William E Barlow; Ann Zauber; Tor Devin Tosteson; Jessica Chubak
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 2.083

2.  Measurement error and misclassification in electronic medical records: methods to mitigate bias.

Authors:  Jessica C Young; Mitchell M Conover; Michele Jonsson Funk
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2018-09-10

3.  Colonoscopy Indication Algorithm Performance Across Diverse Health Care Systems in the PROSPR Consortium.

Authors:  Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Aruna Kamineni; Douglas A Corley; Amit G Singal; Ethan A Halm; Carolyn M Rutter; Jessica Chubak; Jeffrey K Lee; Chyke A Doubeni; John M Inadomi; V Paul Doria-Rose; Yingye Zheng
Journal:  EGEMS (Wash DC)       Date:  2019-08-02

4.  Delayed Colonoscopy Following a Positive Fecal Test Result and Cancer Mortality.

Authors:  Anath A Flugelman; Nili Stein; Ori Segol; Idit Lavi; Lital Keinan-Boker
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2019-05-02

5.  A Bayesian latent class approach for EHR-based phenotyping.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Jing Huang; Joanna Harton; Arman Oganisian; Grace Choi; Levon Utidjian; Ihuoma Eneli; L Charles Bailey; Yong Chen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-09-03       Impact factor: 2.373

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.