Institute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Mar-Apr;19(2):219-24. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000597. Epub 2012 Jan 16.
To evaluate data fragmentation across healthcare centers with regard to the accuracy of a high-throughput clinical phenotyping (HTCP) algorithm developed to differentiate (1) patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and (2) patients with no diabetes.
This population-based study identified all Olmsted County, Minnesota residents in 2007. We used provider-linked electronic medical record data from the two healthcare centers that provide >95% of all care to County residents (ie, Olmsted Medical Center and Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, USA). Subjects were limited to residents with one or more encounter January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2007 at both healthcare centers. DM-relevant data on diagnoses, laboratory results, and medication from both centers were obtained during this period. The algorithm was first executed using data from both centers (ie, the gold standard) and then from Mayo Clinic alone. Positive predictive values and false-negative rates were calculated, and the McNemar test was used to compare categorization when data from the Mayo Clinic alone were used with the gold standard. Age and sex were compared between true-positive and false-negative subjects with T2DM. Statistical significance was accepted as p<0.05.
With data from both medical centers, 765 subjects with T2DM (4256 non-DM subjects) were identified. When single-center data were used, 252 T2DM subjects (1573 non-DM subjects) were missed; an additional false-positive 27 T2DM subjects (215 non-DM subjects) were identified. The positive predictive values and false-negative rates were 95.0% (513/540) and 32.9% (252/765), respectively, for T2DM subjects and 92.6% (2683/2898) and 37.0% (1573/4256), respectively, for non-DM subjects. Age and sex distribution differed between true-positive (mean age 62.1; 45% female) and false-negative (mean age 65.0; 56.0% female) T2DM subjects.
The findings show that application of an HTCP algorithm using data from a single medical center contributes to misclassification. These findings should be considered carefully by researchers when developing and executing HTCP algorithms.
评估医疗中心在高通量临床表型分析(HTCP)算法准确性方面的数据碎片化情况,该算法旨在区分(1)2 型糖尿病(T2DM)患者和(2)无糖尿病患者。
本基于人群的研究确定了 2007 年明尼苏达州奥姆斯特德县的所有居民。我们使用来自为县居民提供 95%以上医疗服务的两个医疗中心(即明尼苏达州罗切斯特的奥姆斯特德医疗中心和梅奥诊所)的关联电子病历数据。研究对象仅限于 2006 年 1 月 1 日至 2007 年 12 月 31 日期间在两个医疗中心至少有一次就诊的居民。在此期间,从两个中心获取 DM 相关的诊断、实验室结果和药物数据。该算法首先使用两个中心的数据(即金标准)执行,然后仅使用梅奥诊所的数据执行。计算阳性预测值和假阴性率,并使用 McNemar 检验比较仅使用梅奥诊所数据与金标准分类时的分类。用 T2DM 比较真阳性和假阴性患者的年龄和性别。统计学意义为 p<0.05。
使用两个医疗中心的数据,共确定了 765 例 T2DM 患者(4256 例非 DM 患者)。当使用单中心数据时,漏诊了 252 例 T2DM 患者(1573 例非 DM 患者);另外还误识别了 27 例 T2DM 患者(215 例非 DM 患者)。T2DM 患者的阳性预测值和假阴性率分别为 95.0%(513/540)和 32.9%(252/765),非 DM 患者的阳性预测值和假阴性率分别为 92.6%(2683/2898)和 37.0%(1573/4256)。真阳性(平均年龄 62.1 岁;45%为女性)和假阴性(平均年龄 65.0 岁;56.0%为女性)T2DM 患者的年龄和性别分布不同。
研究结果表明,使用单医疗中心的数据应用 HTCP 算法会导致分类错误。研究人员在开发和执行 HTCP 算法时应仔细考虑这些发现。