BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Identification and Standardization of data elements used in clinical trials may control and reduce the cost and errors during the operational process, and enable seamless data exchange between the electronic data capture (EDC) systems and Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems. This study presents a methodology to comprehensively capture the clinical trial data element needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Case report forms (CRF) for clinical trial data collection were used to approximate the clinical information need, whereby these information needs were then mapped to a semantically equivalent field within an existing FHIR cancer profile. For items without a semantically equivalent field, we considered these items to be information needs that cannot be represented in current standards and proposed extensions to support these needs. RESULTS: We successfully identified 62 discrete items from a preliminary survey of 43 base questions in four CRFs used in colorectal cancer clinical trials, in which 28 items are modeled with FHIR extensions and their associated responses for colorectal cancer. We achieved promising results in the data population of the CRFs with average Precision 98.5 %, Recall 96.2 %, and F-measure 96.8 % for all base questions. We also demonstrated the auto-filled answers in CRFs can be used to discover patient subgroups using a topic modeling approach. CONCLUSION: CRFs can be considered as a proxy for representing information needs for their respective cancer types. Mining the information needs can serve as a valuable resource for expanding existing standards to ensure they can comprehensively represent relevant clinical data without loss of granularity.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Identification and Standardization of data elements used in clinical trials may control and reduce the cost and errors during the operational process, and enable seamless data exchange between the electronic data capture (EDC) systems and Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems. This study presents a methodology to comprehensively capture the clinical trial data element needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Case report forms (CRF) for clinical trial data collection were used to approximate the clinical information need, whereby these information needs were then mapped to a semantically equivalent field within an existing FHIR cancer profile. For items without a semantically equivalent field, we considered these items to be information needs that cannot be represented in current standards and proposed extensions to support these needs. RESULTS: We successfully identified 62 discrete items from a preliminary survey of 43 base questions in four CRFs used in colorectal cancer clinical trials, in which 28 items are modeled with FHIR extensions and their associated responses for colorectal cancer. We achieved promising results in the data population of the CRFs with average Precision 98.5 %, Recall 96.2 %, and F-measure 96.8 % for all base questions. We also demonstrated the auto-filled answers in CRFs can be used to discover patient subgroups using a topic modeling approach. CONCLUSION: CRFs can be considered as a proxy for representing information needs for their respective cancer types. Mining the information needs can serve as a valuable resource for expanding existing standards to ensure they can comprehensively represent relevant clinical data without loss of granularity.
Authors: David A Grimes; David Hubacher; Kavita Nanda; Kenneth F Schulz; David Moher; Douglas G Altman Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jul 9-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David W Crabb; Ramon Bataller; Naga P Chalasani; Patrick S Kamath; Michael Lucey; Philippe Mathurin; Craig McClain; Arthur McCullough; Mack C Mitchell; Timothy R Morgan; Laura Nagy; Svetlana Radaeva; Arun Sanyal; Vijay Shah; Gyongyi Szabo Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Steven R Alberts; Daniel J Sargent; Suresh Nair; Michelle R Mahoney; Margaret Mooney; Stephen N Thibodeau; Thomas C Smyrk; Frank A Sinicrope; Emily Chan; Sharlene Gill; Morton S Kahlenberg; Anthony F Shields; James T Quesenberry; Thomas A Webb; Gist H Farr; Barbara A Pockaj; Axel Grothey; Richard M Goldberg Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John R Srigley; Tom McGowan; Andrea Maclean; Marilyn Raby; Jillian Ross; Sarah Kramer; Carol Sawka Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2009-06-15 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Philipp Bruland; Mark McGilchrist; Eric Zapletal; Dionisio Acosta; Johann Proeve; Scott Askin; Thomas Ganslandt; Justin Doods; Martin Dugas Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Khaled El Emam; Elizabeth Jonker; Margaret Sampson; Karmela Krleza-Jerić; Angelica Neisa Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Vinod C Kaggal; Ravikumar Komandur Elayavilli; Saeed Mehrabi; Joshua J Pankratz; Sunghwan Sohn; Yanshan Wang; Dingcheng Li; Majid Mojarad Rastegar; Sean P Murphy; Jason L Ross; Rajeev Chaudhry; James D Buntrock; Hongfang Liu Journal: Biomed Inform Insights Date: 2016-06-23
Authors: Stephany N Duda; Nan Kennedy; Douglas Conway; Alex C Cheng; Viet Nguyen; Teresa Zayas-Cabán; Paul A Harris Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Carina Nina Vorisek; Moritz Lehne; Sophie Anne Ines Klopfenstein; Paula Josephine Mayer; Alexander Bartschke; Thomas Haese; Sylvia Thun Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2022-07-19