Evaluation of OMOP CDM, i2b2 and ICGC ARGO for supporting data harmonization in a breast cancer use case of a multicentric European AI project.

OBJECTIVE

Observational research in cancer poses great challenges regarding adequate data sharing and consolidation based on a homogeneous data semantic base. Common Data Models (CDMs) can help consolidate health data repositories from different institutions minimizing loss of meaning by organizing data into a standard structure. This study aims to evaluate the performance of the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) CDM, Informatics for Integrating Biology & the Bedside (i2b2) and International Cancer Genome Consortium, Accelerating Research in Genomic Oncology (ICGC ARGO) for representing non-imaging data in a breast cancer use case of EuCanImage.

METHODS

We used ontologies to represent metamodels of OMOP, i2b2, and ICGC ARGO and variables used in a cancer use case of a European AI project. We selected four evaluation criteria for the CDMs adapted from previous research: content coverage, simplicity, integration, implementability.

RESULTS

i2b2 and OMOP exhibited higher element completeness (100% each) than ICGC ARGO (58.1%), while the three achieved 100% domain completeness. ICGC ARGO normalizes only one of our variables with a standard terminology, while i2b2 and OMOP use standardized vocabularies for all of them. In terms of simplicity, ICGC ARGO and i2b2 proved to be simpler both in terms of ontological model (276 and 175 elements, respectively) and in the queries (7 and 20 lines of code, respectively), while OMOP required a much more complex ontological model (615 elements) and queries similar to those of i2b2 (20 lines). Regarding implementability, OMOP had the highest number of mentions in articles in PubMed (130) and Google Scholar (1,810), ICGC ARGO had the highest number of updates to the CDM since 2020 (4), and i2b2 is the model with more tools specifically developed for the CDM (26).

CONCLUSION

ICGC ARGO proved to be rigid and very limited in the representation of oncologic concepts, while i2b2 and OMOP showed a very good performance. i2b2's lack of a common dictionary hinders its scalability, requiring sites that will share data to explicitly define a conceptual framework, and suggesting that OMOP and its Oncology extension could be the more suitable choice. Future research employing these CDMs with actual datasets is needed.