U Mansmann1. 1. Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland. ulrich.mansmann@lmu.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past 100 years, evidence-based medicine has undergone several fundamental changes. Through the field of physiology, medical doctors were introduced to the natural sciences. Since the late 1940s, randomized and epidemiological studies have come to provide the evidence for medical practice, which led to the emergence of clinical epidemiology as a new field in the medical sciences. Within the past few years, big data has become the driving force behind the vision for having a comprehensive set of health-related data which tracks individual healthcare histories and consequently that of large populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to discuss the implications of data-driven medicine, and to examine how it can find a place within clinical care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EU-wide discussion on the development of data-driven medicine is presented. RESULTS: The following features and suggested actions were identified: harmonizing data formats, data processing and analysis, data exchange, related legal frameworks and ethical challenges. For the effective development of data-driven medicine, pilot projects need to be conducted to allow for open and transparent discussion on the advantages and challenges. The Federal Ministry of Education and Research ("Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung," BMBF) Arthromark project is an important example. Another example is the Medical Informatics Initiative of the BMBF. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The digital revolution affects clinic practice. Data can be generated and stored in quantities that are almost unimaginable. It is possible to take advantage of this for development of a learning healthcare system if the principles of medical evidence generation are integrated into innovative IT-infrastructures and processes.
BACKGROUND: Over the past 100 years, evidence-based medicine has undergone several fundamental changes. Through the field of physiology, medical doctors were introduced to the natural sciences. Since the late 1940s, randomized and epidemiological studies have come to provide the evidence for medical practice, which led to the emergence of clinical epidemiology as a new field in the medical sciences. Within the past few years, big data has become the driving force behind the vision for having a comprehensive set of health-related data which tracks individual healthcare histories and consequently that of large populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to discuss the implications of data-driven medicine, and to examine how it can find a place within clinical care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EU-wide discussion on the development of data-driven medicine is presented. RESULTS: The following features and suggested actions were identified: harmonizing data formats, data processing and analysis, data exchange, related legal frameworks and ethical challenges. For the effective development of data-driven medicine, pilot projects need to be conducted to allow for open and transparent discussion on the advantages and challenges. The Federal Ministry of Education and Research ("Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung," BMBF) Arthromark project is an important example. Another example is the Medical Informatics Initiative of the BMBF. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The digital revolution affects clinic practice. Data can be generated and stored in quantities that are almost unimaginable. It is possible to take advantage of this for development of a learning healthcare system if the principles of medical evidence generation are integrated into innovative IT-infrastructures and processes.
Keywords:
Data collection; Evidence-based medicine; Information processing; Medical informatics; Patient data privacy
Authors: Shawn Murphy; Susanne Churchill; Lynn Bry; Henry Chueh; Scott Weiss; Ross Lazarus; Qing Zeng; Anil Dubey; Vivian Gainer; Michael Mendis; John Glaser; Isaac Kohane Journal: Genome Res Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: J Marés; L Shamardin; G Weiler; A Anguita; S Sfakianakis; E Neri; S J Zasada; N Graf; P V Coveney Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2014-11-14
Authors: Jonas F Ludvigsson; Eva Andersson; Anders Ekbom; Maria Feychting; Jeong-Lim Kim; Christina Reuterwall; Mona Heurgren; Petra Otterblad Olausson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Nathan D Price; Andrew T Magis; John C Earls; Gustavo Glusman; Roie Levy; Christopher Lausted; Daniel T McDonald; Ulrike Kusebauch; Christopher L Moss; Yong Zhou; Shizhen Qin; Robert L Moritz; Kristin Brogaard; Gilbert S Omenn; Jennifer C Lovejoy; Leroy Hood Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Mark D Wilkinson; Michel Dumontier; I Jsbrand Jan Aalbersberg; Gabrielle Appleton; Myles Axton; Arie Baak; Niklas Blomberg; Jan-Willem Boiten; Luiz Bonino da Silva Santos; Philip E Bourne; Jildau Bouwman; Anthony J Brookes; Tim Clark; Mercè Crosas; Ingrid Dillo; Olivier Dumon; Scott Edmunds; Chris T Evelo; Richard Finkers; Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran; Alasdair J G Gray; Paul Groth; Carole Goble; Jeffrey S Grethe; Jaap Heringa; Peter A C 't Hoen; Rob Hooft; Tobias Kuhn; Ruben Kok; Joost Kok; Scott J Lusher; Maryann E Martone; Albert Mons; Abel L Packer; Bengt Persson; Philippe Rocca-Serra; Marco Roos; Rene van Schaik; Susanna-Assunta Sansone; Erik Schultes; Thierry Sengstag; Ted Slater; George Strawn; Morris A Swertz; Mark Thompson; Johan van der Lei; Erik van Mulligen; Jan Velterop; Andra Waagmeester; Peter Wittenburg; Katherine Wolstencroft; Jun Zhao; Barend Mons Journal: Sci Data Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: T Häupl; A Skapenko; B Hoppe; K Skriner; H Burkhardt; D Poddubnyy; S Ohrndorf; P Sewerin; U Mansmann; B Stuhlmüller; H Schulze-Koops; G-R Burmester Journal: Z Rheumatol Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 1.372