Dataset Information

Data extraction for epidemiological research (DExtER): a novel tool for automated clinical epidemiology studies.

ABSTRACT: The use of primary care electronic health records for research is abundant. The benefits gained from utilising such records lies in their size, longitudinal data collection and data quality. However, the use of such data to undertake high quality epidemiological studies, can lead to significant challenges particularly in dealing with misclassification, variation in coding and the significant effort required to pre-process the data in a meaningful format for statistical analysis. In this paper, we describe a methodology to aid with the extraction and processing of such databases, delivered by a novel software programme; the "Data extraction for epidemiological research" (DExtER). The basis of DExtER relies on principles of extract, transform and load processes. The tool initially provides the ability for the healthcare dataset to be extracted, then transformed in a format whereby data is normalised, converted and reformatted. DExtER has a user interface designed to obtain data extracts specific to each research question and observational study design. There are facilities to input the requirements for; eligible study period, definition of exposed and unexposed groups, outcome measures and important baseline covariates. To date the tool has been utilised and validated in a multitude of settings. There have been over 35 peer-reviewed publications using the tool, and DExtER has been implemented as a validated public health surveillance tool for obtaining accurate statistics on epidemiology of key morbidities. Future direction of this work will be the application of the framework to linked as well as international datasets and the development of standardised methods for conducting electronic pre-processing and extraction from datasets for research purposes.

SUBMITTER: Gokhale KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7987616 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Analyses of female representation in clinical studies have been limited in scope and scale. Objective:To perform a large-scale analysis of global enrollment sex bias in clinical studies. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this cross-sectional study, clinical studies from published articles from PubMed from 1966 to 2018 and records from Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov from 1999 to 2018 were identified. Global disease prevalence was determined for male and female patients in 11 disease categories from the Global Burden of Disease database: cardiovascular, diabetes, digestive, hepatitis (types A, B, C, and E), HIV/AIDS, kidney (chronic), mental, musculoskeletal, neoplasms, neurological, and respiratory (chronic). Machine reading algorithms were developed that extracted sex data from tables in articles and records on December 31, 2018, at an artificial intelligence research institute. Male and female participants in 43 135 articles (792 004 915 participants) and 13 165 records (12 977 103 participants) were included. Main Outcomes and Measures:Sex bias was defined as the difference between the fraction of female participants in study participants minus prevalence fraction of female participants for each disease category. A total of 1000 bootstrap estimates of sex bias were computed by resampling individual studies with replacement. Sex bias was reported as mean and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals from articles and records in each disease category over time (before or during 1993 to 2018), with studies or participants as the measurement unit. Results:There were 792 004 915 participants, including 390 470 834 female participants (49%), in articles and 12 977 103 participants, including 6 351 619 female participants (49%), in records. With studies as measurement unit, substantial female underrepresentation (sex bias ≤ -0.05) was observed in 7 of 11 disease categories, especially HIV/AIDS (mean for articles, -0.17 [95% CI, -0.18 to -0.16]), chronic kidney diseases (mean, -0.17 [95% CI, -0.17 to -0.16]), and cardiovascular diseases (mean, -0.14 [95% CI, -0.14 to -0.13]). Sex bias in articles for all categories combined was unchanged over time with studies as measurement unit (range, -0.15 [95% CI, -0.16 to -0.13] to -0.10 [95% CI, -0.14 to -0.06]), but improved from before or during 1993 (mean, -0.11 [95% CI, -0.16 to -0.05]) to 2014 to 2018 (mean, -0.05 [95% CI, -0.09 to -0.02]) with participants as the measurement unit. Larger study size was associated with greater female representation. Conclusions and Relevance:Automated extraction of the number of participants in clinical reports provides an effective alternative to manual analysis of demographic bias. Despite legal and policy initiatives to increase female representation, sex bias against female participants in clinical studies persists. Studies with more participants have greater female representation. Differences between sex bias estimates with studies vs participants as measurement unit, and between articles vs records, suggest that sex bias with both measures and data sources should be reported.

Project description:Gene expression levels affect biological processes and play a key role in many diseases. Characterizing expression profiles is useful for clinical research, and diagnostics and prognostics of diseases. There are currently several high-quality databases that capture gene expression information, obtained mostly from large-scale studies, such as microarray and next-generation sequencing technologies, in the context of disease. The scientific literature is another rich source of information on gene expression-disease relationships that not only have been captured from large-scale studies but have also been observed in thousands of small-scale studies. Expression information obtained from literature through manual curation can extend expression databases. While many of the existing databases include information from literature, they are limited by the time-consuming nature of manual curation and have difficulty keeping up with the explosion of publications in the biomedical field. In this work, we describe an automated text-mining tool, Disease-Expression Relation Extraction from Text (DEXTER) to extract information from literature on gene and microRNA expression in the context of disease. One of the motivations in developing DEXTER was to extend the BioXpress database, a cancer-focused gene expression database that includes data derived from large-scale experiments and manual curation of publications. The literature-based portion of BioXpress lags behind significantly compared to expression information obtained from large-scale studies and can benefit from our text-mined results. We have conducted two different evaluations to measure the accuracy of our text-mining tool and achieved average F-scores of 88.51 and 81.81% for the two evaluations, respectively. Also, to demonstrate the ability to extract rich expression information in different disease-related scenarios, we used DEXTER to extract information on differential expression information for 2024 genes in lung cancer, 115 glycosyltransferases in 62 cancers and 826 microRNA in 171 cancers. All extractions using DEXTER are integrated in the literature-based portion of BioXpress.Database URL: http://biotm.cis.udel.edu/DEXTER.

Dataset Information

Data extraction for epidemiological research (DExtER): a novel tool for automated clinical epidemiology studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets