Dataset Information

Comparison of crowd-sourced, electronic health records based, and traditional health-care based influenza-tracking systems at multiple spatial resolutions in the United States of America.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Influenza causes an estimated 3000 to 50,000 deaths per year in the United States of America (US). Timely and representative data can help local, state, and national public health officials monitor and respond to outbreaks of seasonal influenza. Data from cloud-based electronic health records (EHR) and crowd-sourced influenza surveillance systems have the potential to provide complementary, near real-time estimates of influenza activity. The objectives of this paper are to compare two novel influenza-tracking systems with three traditional healthcare-based influenza surveillance systems at four spatial resolutions: national, regional, state, and city, and to determine the minimum number of participants in these systems required to produce influenza activity estimates that resemble the historical trends recorded by traditional surveillance systems. METHODS:We compared influenza activity estimates from five influenza surveillance systems: 1) patient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) from the US Outpatient ILI Surveillance Network (ILINet), 2) virologic data from World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) Laboratories, 3) Emergency Department (ED) syndromic surveillance from Boston, Massachusetts, 4) patient visits for ILI from EHR, and 5) reports of ILI from the crowd-sourced system, Flu Near You (FNY), by calculating correlations between these systems across four influenza seasons, 2012-16, at four different spatial resolutions in the US. For the crowd-sourced system, we also used a bootstrapping statistical approach to estimate the minimum number of reports necessary to produce a meaningful signal at a given spatial resolution. RESULTS:In general, as the spatial resolution increased, correlation values between all influenza surveillance systems decreased. Influenza-like Illness rates in geographic areas with more than 250 crowd-sourced participants or with more than 20,000 visit counts for EHR tracked government-lead estimates of influenza activity. CONCLUSIONS:With a sufficient number of reports, data from novel influenza surveillance systems can complement traditional healthcare-based systems at multiple spatial resolutions.

SUBMITTER: Baltrusaitis K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6094455 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of crowd-sourced, electronic health records based, and traditional health-care based influenza-tracking systems at multiple spatial resolutions in the United States of America.

Baltrusaitis Kristin K Brownstein John S JS Scarpino Samuel V SV Bakota Eric E Crawley Adam W AW Conidi Giuseppe G Gunn Julia J Gray Josh J Zink Anna A Santillana Mauricio M

BMC infectious diseases 20180815 1

<h4>Background</h4>Influenza causes an estimated 3000 to 50,000 deaths per year in the United States of America (US). Timely and representative data can help local, state, and national public health officials monitor and respond to outbreaks of seasonal influenza. Data from cloud-based electronic health records (EHR) and crowd-sourced influenza surveillance systems have the potential to provide complementary, near real-time estimates of influenza activity. The objectives of this paper are to com ...[more]

PMID: 30111305

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Administrative health records (AHRs) and electronic medical records (EMRs) are two key sources of population-based data for disease surveillance, but misclassification errors in the data can bias disease estimates. Methods that combine information from error-prone data sources can build on the strengths of AHRs and EMRs. We compared bias and error for four data-combining methods and applied them to estimate hypertension prevalence. METHODS:Our study included rule-based OR and AND methods that identify disease cases from either or both data sources, respectively, rule-based sensitivity-specificity adjusted (RSSA) method that corrects for inaccuracies using a deterministic rule, and probabilistic-based sensitivity-specificity adjusted (PSSA) method that corrects for error using a statistical model. Computer simulation was used to estimate relative bias (RB) and mean square error (MSE) under varying conditions of population disease prevalence, correlation amongst data sources, and amount of misclassification error. AHRs and EMRs for Manitoba, Canada were used to estimate hypertension prevalence using validated case definitions and multiple disease markers. RESULTS:The OR method had the lowest RB and MSE when population disease prevalence was 10%, and the RSSA method had the lowest RB and MSE when population prevalence increased to 20%. As the correlation between data sources increased, the OR method resulted in the lowest RB and MSE. Estimates of hypertension prevalence for AHRs and EMRs alone were 30.9% (95% CI: 30.6-31.2) and 24.9% (95% CI: 24.6-25.2), respectively. The estimates were 21.4% (95% CI: 21.1-21.7), for the AND method, 34.4% (95% CI: 34.1-34.8) for the OR method, 32.2% (95% CI: 31.8-32.6) for the RSSA method, and ranged from 34.3% (95% CI: 34.1-34.5) to 35.9% (95% CI, 35.7-36.1) for the PSSA method, depending on the statistical model. CONCLUSIONS:The OR and AND methods are influenced by correlation amongst the data sources, while the RSSA method is dependent on the accuracy of prior sensitivity and specificity estimates. The PSSA method performed well when population prevalence was high and average correlations amongst disease markers was low. This study will guide researchers to select a data-combining method that best suits their data characteristics.

Project description:BackgroundVideo-based assessment by experts may structurally measure surgical performance using procedure-specific competency assessment tools (CATs). A CAT for minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE-CAT) was developed and validated previously. However, surgeon's time is scarce and video assessment is time-consuming and labor intensive. This study investigated non-procedure-specific assessment of MIE video clips by MIE experts and crowdsourcing, collective surgical performance evaluation by anonymous and untrained laypeople, to assist procedure-specific expert review.MethodsTwo surgical performance scoring frameworks were used to assess eight MIE videos. First, global performance was assessed with the non-procedure-specific Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) of 64 procedural phase-based video clips < 10 min. Each clip was assessed by two MIE experts and > 30 crowd workers. Second, the same experts assessed procedure-specific performance with the MIE-CAT of the corresponding full-length video. Reliability and convergent validity of GOALS for MIE were investigated using hypothesis testing with correlations (experience, blood loss, operative time, and MIE-CAT).ResultsLess than 75% of hypothesized correlations between GOALS scores and experience of the surgical team (r < 0.3), blood loss (r = - 0.82 to 0.02), operative time (r = - 0.42 to 0.07), and the MIE-CAT scores (r = - 0.04 to 0.76) were met for both crowd workers and experts. Interestingly, experts' GOALS and MIE-CAT scores correlated strongly (r = 0.40 to 0.79), while crowd workers' GOALS and experts' MIE-CAT scores correlations were weak (r = - 0.04 to 0.49). Expert and crowd worker GOALS scores correlated poorly (ICC ≤ 0.42).ConclusionGOALS assessments by crowd workers lacked convergent validity and showed poor reliability. It is likely that MIE is technically too difficult to assess for laypeople. Convergent validity of GOALS assessments by experts could also not be established. GOALS might not be comprehensive enough to assess detailed MIE performance. However, expert's GOALS and MIE-CAT scores strongly correlated indicating video clip (instead of full-length video) assessments could be useful to shorten assessment time.

Dataset Information

Comparison of crowd-sourced, electronic health records based, and traditional health-care based influenza-tracking systems at multiple spatial resolutions in the United States of America.

Publications

Comparison of crowd-sourced, electronic health records based, and traditional health-care based influenza-tracking systems at multiple spatial resolutions in the United States of America.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets