Dataset Information

Removing the Mask of Average Treatment Effects in Chronic Lyme Disease Research Using Big Data and Subgroup Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Lyme disease is caused by the bacteria borrelia burgdorferi and is spread primarily through the bite of a tick. There is considerable uncertainty in the medical community regarding the best approach to treating patients with Lyme disease who do not respond fully to short-term antibiotic therapy. These patients have persistent Lyme disease symptoms resulting from lack of treatment, under-treatment, or lack of response to their antibiotic treatment protocol. In the past, treatment trials have used small restrictive samples and relied on average treatment effects as their measure of success and produced conflicting results. To provide individualized care, clinicians need information that reflects their patient population. Today, we have the ability to analyze large data bases, including patient registries, that reflect the broader range of patients more typically seen in clinical practice. This allows us to examine treatment variation within the sample and identify groups of patients that are most responsive to treatment. Using patient-reported outcome data from the MyLymeData online patient registry, we show that sub-group analysis techniques can unmask valuable information that is hidden if averages alone are used. In our analysis, this approach revealed treatment effectiveness for up to a third of patients with Lyme disease. This study is important because it can help open the door to more individualized patient care using patient-centered outcomes and real-world evidence.

SUBMITTER: Johnson L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6316052 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Removing the Mask of Average Treatment Effects in Chronic Lyme Disease Research Using Big Data and Subgroup Analysis.

Johnson Lorraine L Shapiro Mira M Mankoff Jennifer J

Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) 20181012 4

Lyme disease is caused by the bacteria borrelia burgdorferi and is spread primarily through the bite of a tick. There is considerable uncertainty in the medical community regarding the best approach to treating patients with Lyme disease who do not respond fully to short-term antibiotic therapy. These patients have persistent Lyme disease symptoms resulting from lack of treatment, under-treatment, or lack of response to their antibiotic treatment protocol. In the past, treatment trials have used ...[more]

PMID: 30322049

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMissing data is a pervasive problem in clinical research. Generative adversarial imputation nets (GAIN), a novel machine learning data imputation approach, has the potential to substitute missing data accurately and efficiently but has not yet been evaluated in empirical big clinical datasets.ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of GAIN in imputing missing values in large real-world clinical datasets with mixed-type variables. The computation efficiency of GAIN was also evaluated. The performance of GAIN was compared with other commonly used methods, MICE and missForest.MethodsTwo real world clinical datasets were used. The first was that of a cohort study on the long-term outcomes of patients with diabetes (50,000 complete cases), and the second was of a cohort study on the effectiveness of a risk assessment and management programme for patients with hypertension (10,000 complete cases). Missing data (missing at random) to independent variables were simulated at different missingness rates (20, 50%). The normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) between imputed values and real values for continuous variables and the proportion of falsely classified (PFC) for categorical variables were used to measure imputation accuracy. Computation time per imputation for each method was recorded. The differences in accuracy of different imputation methods were compared using ANOVA or non-parametric test.ResultsBoth missForest and GAIN were more accurate than MICE. GAIN showed similar accuracy as missForest when the simulated missingness rate was 20%, but was more accurate when the simulated missingness rate was 50%. GAIN was the most accurate for the imputation of skewed continuous and imbalanced categorical variables at both missingness rates. GAIN had a much higher computation speed (32 min on PC) comparing to that of missForest (1300 min) when the sample size is 50,000.ConclusionGAIN showed better accuracy as an imputation method for missing data in large real-world clinical datasets compared to MICE and missForest, and was more resistant to high missingness rate (50%). The high computation speed is an added advantage of GAIN in big clinical data research. It holds potential as an accurate and efficient method for missing data imputation in future big data clinical research.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03299010 ; Unique Protocol ID: HKUCTR-2232.

Project description:ObjectivesSynthetic datasets are artificially manufactured based on real health systems data but do not contain real patient information. We sought to validate the use of synthetic data in stroke and cancer research by conducting a comparison study of cancer patients with ischemic stroke to non-cancer patients with ischemic stroke.Designretrospective cohort study.SettingWe used synthetic data generated by MDClone and compared it to its original source data (i.e. real patient data from the Ottawa Hospital Data Warehouse).Outcome measuresWe compared key differences in demographics, treatment characteristics, length of stay, and costs between cancer patients with ischemic stroke and non-cancer patients with ischemic stroke. We used a binary, multivariable logistic regression model to identify risk factors for recurrent stroke in the cancer population.ResultsUsing synthetic data, we found cancer patients with ischemic stroke had a lower prevalence of hypertension (52.0% in the cancer cohort vs 57.7% in the non-cancer cohort, p<0.0001), and a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD: 8.5% vs 4.7%, p<0.0001), prior ischemic stroke (1.7% vs 0.1%, p<0.001), and prior venous thromboembolism (VTE: 8.2% vs 1.5%, p<0.0001). They also had a longer length of stay (8 days [IQR 3-16] vs 6 days [IQR 3-13], p = 0.011), and higher costs associated with their stroke encounters: $11,498 (IQR $4,440 -$20,668) in the cancer cohort vs $8,084 (IQR $3,947 -$16,706) in the non-cancer cohort (p = 0.0061). A multivariable logistic regression model identified 5 predictors for recurrent ischemic stroke in the cancer cohort using synthetic data; 3 of the same predictors identified using real patient data with similar effect measures. Summary statistics between synthetic and original datasets did not significantly differ, other than slight differences in the distributions of frequencies for numeric data.ConclusionWe demonstrated the utility of synthetic data in stroke and cancer research and provided key differences between cancer and non-cancer patients with ischemic stroke. Synthetic data is a powerful tool that can allow researchers to easily explore hypothesis generation, enable data sharing without privacy breaches, and ensure broad access to big data in a rapid, safe, and reliable fashion.

Dataset Information

Removing the Mask of Average Treatment Effects in Chronic Lyme Disease Research Using Big Data and Subgroup Analysis.

Publications

Removing the Mask of Average Treatment Effects in Chronic Lyme Disease Research Using Big Data and Subgroup Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets