A case is not a case is not a case - challenges and solutions in determining urolithiasis caseloads using the digital infrastructure of a clinical data warehouse
Schoenthaler, M.; Hempen, N.; Weymann, M.; von Bargen, M. F.; Glienke, M.; Elsaesser, A.; Behrens, M.; Binder, H.; Binder, N.
Show abstract
BackgroundTo provide more evidence in urolithiasis research, we have established the German Nationwide Register for RECurrent URolithiasis (RECUR) using local clinical data warehouses (CDWH). For RECUR and other registers relying on digitalized clinical data, it is crucial to ensure the datas reliability for answering scientific questions. In this work, we aim to compare the results of different CDWH-based queries on urolithiasis cases next to manual case extraction from the primary source. MethodsSources for data extraction included the Medical Center University of Freiburg (MCUF) hospital information system (HIS), MCUF performance data (a clinical data set with merged data from patients including data from various time points throughout their treatment), and MCUF reimbursement data. We extracted data on caseloads in urolithiasis algorithmically (performance and reimbursement data) and compared those to a reference group compiled of manually extracted data from the local HIS and algorithmically extracted data. ResultsAlgorithmic extraction based on performance data resulted in correct and complete case identification as compared to the reference group. The case numbers from manual extraction from HIS data and algorithmic extraction from reimbursement data differed by 14% and 12%, respectively. The reasons for deviations in HIS data included human errors and a lack of data availability from different wards. Deviations in reimbursement data arose primarily due to the merging of cases in the context of reimbursement mechanisms. As the CDWH at MCUF is part of the German Medical Informatics Initiative (MII), the results can be transferred to other medical centers with similar CDWH structure. ConclusionsThe current study provides firm evidence of the importance of clearly defining a studys target variable, e.g., urolithiasis cases, and a thorough understanding of the data sources and modes used to extract the target data. Our work clearly shows that, depending on various data sources, a case is not a case is not a case.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and Validation of ‘Patient Optimizer’ (POP) Algorithms for Predicting Surgical Risk with Machine Learning 92%
- On the predictability of postoperative complications for cancer patients: a Portuguese cohort study 91%
- Towards a Clinically-based Common Coordinate Framework for the Human Gut Cell Atlas - The Gut Models 90%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The effect of digital-enabled multidisciplinary therapy conferences on efficiency and quality of the decision making in prostate-cancer care 94%
- Development of a customised data management system for a COVID-19-adapted colorectal cancer pathway 92%
- Impact of the Federated Data Platform's digital surgery scheduling system on elective theatre utilisation at an NHS Trust: an interrupted time series analysis 90%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Prescribing patterns for medical treatment of suspected prostatic obstruction: A spatiotemporal statistical analysis of Scottish open access data 93%
- Retrospective Validation of an Artificial Intelligence System for Diagnostic Assessment of Prostate Biopsies on the ProMort Cohort: Study Protocol 92%
- Risk factors for renal stone development in adults with primary hyperparathyroidism: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.