Dataset Information

ACE: the Advanced Cohort Engine for searching longitudinal patient records.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To propose a paradigm for a scalable time-aware clinical data search, and to describe the design, implementation and use of a search engine realizing this paradigm.

Materials and methods

The Advanced Cohort Engine (ACE) uses a temporal query language and in-memory datastore of patient objects to provide a fast, scalable, and expressive time-aware search. ACE accepts data in the Observational Medicine Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model, and is configurable to balance performance with compute cost. ACE's temporal query language supports automatic query expansion using clinical knowledge graphs. The ACE API can be used with R, Python, Java, HTTP, and a Web UI.

Results

ACE offers an expressive query language for complex temporal search across many clinical data types with multiple output options. ACE enables electronic phenotyping and cohort-building with subsecond response times in searching the data of millions of patients for a variety of use cases.

Discussion

ACE enables fast, time-aware search using a patient object-centric datastore, thereby overcoming many technical and design shortcomings of relational algebra-based querying. Integrating electronic phenotype development with cohort-building enables a variety of high-value uses for a learning health system. Tradeoffs include the need to learn a new query language and the technical setup burden.

Conclusion

ACE is a tool that combines a unique query language for time-aware search of longitudinal patient records with a patient object datastore for rapid electronic phenotyping, cohort extraction, and exploratory data analyses.

SUBMITTER: Callahan A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8279796 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) provide rich data on many domains not routinely available in other data, as such, they are a promising source to study changes in health outcomes using longitudinal study designs (eg, cohort studies, natural experiments, etc.). Yet, patient attrition rates in these data are unknown.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to estimate overall and among adults with diabetes or hypertension: (1) patient attrition over a 3-year period at community health centers; and (2) the likelihood that patients with Medicaid permanently switched their source of primary care.Research designA retrospective cohort study of 2012-2017 data from the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network (ADVANCE) Clinical Data Research Network of community health centers were used to assess EHR data attrition. Oregon Medicaid enrollment and claims data were used to estimate the likelihood of changing the source of primary care.SubjectsA total of 827,657 patients aged 19-64 with ≥1 ambulatory visit from 76 community health center systems across 20 states. In all, 232,891 Oregon Medicaid enrollees (aged 19-64) with a gap of ≥6 months following a claim for a visit billed to a primary care source.MeasuresPercentage of patients not returning within 3 years of their qualifying visit (attrition). The probability that a patient with Medicaid permanently changed their primary care source.ResultsAttrition over the 3 years averaged 33.5%; attrition rates were lower (<25%) among patients with diabetes and/or hypertension. Among Medicaid enrollees, the percentage of provider change after a 6-month gap between visits was 12% for community health center patients compared with 39% for single-provider practice patients. Over 3 years, the likelihood of a patient changing to a new provider increased with length of time since their last visit but remained lowest among community health center patients.ConclusionThis study demonstrates the use of the EHR dataset is a reliable source of data to support longitudinal studies while highlighting variability in attrition by primary care source and chronic conditions.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To estimate individual level body temperature and to correlate it with other measures of physiology and health. DESIGN:Observational cohort study. SETTING:Outpatient clinics of a large academic hospital, 2009-14. PARTICIPANTS:35 488 patients who neither received a diagnosis for infections nor were prescribed antibiotics, in whom temperature was expected to be within normal limits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Baseline temperatures at individual level, estimated using random effects regression and controlling for ambient conditions at the time of measurement, body site, and time factors. Baseline temperatures were correlated with demographics, medical comorbidities, vital signs, and subsequent one year mortality. RESULTS:In a diverse cohort of 35 488 patients (mean age 52.9 years, 64% women, 41% non-white race) with 243 506 temperature measurements, mean temperature was 36.6°C (95% range 35.7-37.3°C, 99% range 35.3-37.7°C). Several demographic factors were linked to individual level temperature, with older people the coolest (-0.021°C for every decade, P<0.001) and African-American women the hottest (versus white men: 0.052°C, P<0.001). Several comorbidities were linked to lower temperature (eg, hypothyroidism: -0.013°C, P=0.01) or higher temperature (eg, cancer: 0.020, P<0.001), as were physiological measurements (eg, body mass index: 0.002 per m/kg2, P<0.001). Overall, measured factors collectively explained only 8.2% of individual temperature variation. Despite this, unexplained temperature variation was a significant predictor of subsequent mortality: controlling for all measured factors, an increase of 0.149°C (1 SD of individual temperature in the data) was linked to 8.4% higher one year mortality (P=0.014). CONCLUSIONS:Individuals' baseline temperatures showed meaningful variation that was not due solely to measurement error or environmental factors. Baseline temperatures correlated with demographics, comorbid conditions, and physiology, but these factors explained only a small part of individual temperature variation. Unexplained variation in baseline temperature, however, strongly predicted mortality.

Project description:Parkinson's disease (PD) is associated with diverse clinical manifestations including motor and non-motor signs and symptoms, and emerging biomarkers. We aimed to reveal the heterogeneity of PD to define subtypes and their progression rates using an automated deep learning algorithm on the top of longitudinal clinical records. This study utilizes the data collected from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI), which is a longitudinal cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed Parkinson's disease. Clinical information including motor and non-motor assessments, biospecimen examinations, and neuroimaging results were used for identification of PD subtypes. A deep learning algorithm, Long-Short Term Memory (LSTM), was used to represent each patient as a multi-dimensional time series for subtype identification. Both visualization and statistical analysis were performed for analyzing the obtained PD subtypes. As a result, 466 patients with idiopathic PD were investigated and three subtypes were identified. Subtype I (Mild Baseline, Moderate Motor Progression) is comprised of 43.1% of the participants, with average age 58.79 ± 9.53 years, and was characterized by moderate functional decay in motor ability but stable cognitive ability. Subtype II (Moderate Baseline, Mild Progression) is comprised of 22.9% of the participants, with average age 61.93 ± 6.56 years, and was characterized by mild functional decay in both motor and non-motor symptoms. Subtype III (Severe Baseline, Rapid Progression) is comprised 33.9% of the patients, with average age 65.32 ± 8.86 years, and was characterized by rapid progression of both motor and non-motor symptoms. These subtypes suggest that when comprehensive clinical and biomarker data are incorporated into a deep learning algorithm, the disease progression rates do not necessarily associate with baseline severities, and the progression rate of non-motor symptoms is not necessarily correlated with the progression rate of motor symptoms.

Project description:ClinicalTrials.gov was started with the intention to create a consumer-friendly database for patients and others in search of information on clinical trials. However, there is no research on whether the content of ClinicalTrials.gov aligns with patient preferences. The TransCelerate Clinical Research Access & Information Exchange Initiative convened patient advisory boards and conducted a global online survey (N = 1070) to determine patient preferences when searching for clinical trials for participation. Patient feedback and ClinicalTrials.gov guidance documents were used to construct instruments to assess patient focus and guidance adherence of the Brief Title (a short lay title of the clinical trial) and Brief Summary (a high-level summary of study features) data fields in a representative sample (N = 346) of ClinicalTrials.gov records of interventional trials. When searching for clinical trials, survey participants rated condition (66.4%), trial location (57.0%), trial dates (52.9%), age and gender (48.6%), and health measurements (i.e., what the study measures) (45.5%) as the most important items. When presented with a list of trials from an initial search, participants saw condition, brief summary, study drug name, and brief title as the most helpful items. In a Brief Title, they wanted condition, health measurements, participant age, and study drug name. For Brief Summaries, participants preferred additional information on treatment duration, condition, study goal, health measurements, and frequency of visits. The assessment of patient focus in a representative sample of current ClinicalTrials.gov records showed that patient focus was underdeveloped as study records achieved only 52% (brief titles) and 50% (brief summaries) of the best possible score. The analysis of adherence to ClinicalTrials.gov guidance showed better scores (brief titles 69%, brief summaries 66%). We identified key information elements for registry users when evaluating clinical trials for participation. We found that aspects of patient focus are not common in current ClinicalTrials.gov entries. To support more user-friendly study records, we developed a tool to assess the quality of the plain language fields in study records prior to submission.

Project description:BackgroundEpidemiological studies utilize residential histories to assess environmental exposure risk. The validity from using commercially-sourced residential histories within national longitudinal studies remains unclear. Our study assessed predictors of non-agreement between baseline addresses from the commercially-sourced LexisNexis database and participants in the national longitudinal study, REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS). Additionally, we assessed differences in stroke risk by neighborhood socioeconomic score (nSES) based on participant reported address compared to nSES from LexisNexis/REGARDS matched baseline address.MethodsFrom January 2003-October 2007, REGARDS enrolled 30,239 black and white adults aged 45 and older within the continental United States and collected their baseline address. ArcGIS Desktop 10.5.1 with ESRI 2016 Business Analyst Data was used to geocode baseline addresses from LexisNexis and REGARDS. Logistic regression was used to estimate the likelihood that LexisNexis address matched REGARDS baseline address for each participant. Survival analysis was used to estimate association between nSES and incident stroke.ResultsApproximately 91% of REGARDS participants had a LexisNexis address. Of these geocoded addresses, 93% of REGARDS baseline addresses matched LexisNexis addresses. Odds of agreement between LexisNexis and REGARDS was higher for older-aged participants (OR = 1.02 per year, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.02), blacks compared to whites (OR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.29), females compared to males (OR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.26), participants with an income of $34k-74k compared to an income less than $20k (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.39, 1.89). Odds of agreement were lower for residents in Midwest compared to residents in the south (OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.73, 0.94). No significant differences in nSES-stroke associations were observed between REGARDS only and LexisNexis/REGARDS matched addresses; however, differences in interactions were observed.ConclusionAgreement between LexisNexis and REGARDS addresses varied by sociodemographic groups, potentially introducing bias in studies reliant on LexisNexis alone for residential address data.