Assessing the Data Quality Dimensions of Partial and Complete Mastectomy Cohorts in the <i>All of Us</i> Research Program: Cross-Sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Breast cancer is prevalent among females in the United States. Nonmetastatic disease is treated by partial or complete mastectomy procedures. However, the rates of those procedures vary across practices. Generating real-world evidence on breast cancer surgery could lead to improved and consistent practices. We investigated the quality of data from the All of Us Research Program, which is a precision medicine initiative that collected real-world electronic health care data from different sites in the United States both retrospectively and prospectively to participant enrollment. Objective: The paper aims to determine whether All of Us data are fit for use in generating real-world evidence on mastectomy procedures. Methods: Our mastectomy phenotype consisted of adult female participants who had CPT4 (Current Procedural Terminology 4), ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision) procedure, or SNOMED (Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine) codes for a partial or complete mastectomy procedure that mapped to Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model concepts. We evaluated the phenotype with a data quality dimensions (DQD) framework that consisted of 5 elements: conformance, completeness, concordance, plausibility, and temporality. Also, we applied a previously developed DQD checklist to evaluate concept selection, internal verification, and external validation for each dimension. We compared the DQD of our cohort to a control group of adult women who did not have a mastectomy procedure. Our subgroup analysis compared partial to complete mastectomy procedure phenotypes. Results: There were 4175 female participants aged 18 years or older in the partial or complete mastectomy cohort, and 168,226 participants in the control cohort. The geospatial distribution of our cohort varied across states. For example, our cohort consisted of 835 (20%) participants from Massachusetts, but multiple other states contributed fewer than 20 participants. We compared the sociodemographic characteristics of the partial (n=2607) and complete (n=1568) mastectomy subgroups. Those groups differed in the distribution of age at procedure (P<.001), education (P=.02), and income (P=.03) levels, as per χ2 analysis. A total of 367 (9.9%) participants in our cohort had overlapping CPT4 and SNOMED codes for a mastectomy, and 63 (1.5%) had overlapping ICD-9 procedure and SNOMED codes. The prevalence of breast cancer-related concepts was higher in our cohort compared to the control group (P<.001). In both the partial and complete mastectomy subgroups, the correlations among concepts were consistent with the clinical management of breast cancer. The median time between biopsy and mastectomy was 5.5 (IQR 3.5-11.2) weeks. Although we did not have external benchmark comparisons, we were able to evaluate concept selection and internal verification for all domains. Conclusions: Our data quality framework was implemented successfully on a mastectomy phenotype. Our systematic approach identified data missingness. Moreover, the framework allowed us to differentiate breast-conserving therapy and complete mastectomy subgroups in the All of Us data.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».