MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905274981 · doi:10.2196/11487

SNOMED CT Concept Hierarchies for Computable Clinical Phenotypes From Electronic Health Record Data: Comparison of Intensional Versus Extensional Value Sets

2018· article· en· W2905274981 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ling Chu, Vaishnavi Kannan, Mujeeb Basit, Diane J Schaeflein, Adolfo R Ortuzar, Jimmie F Glorioso, Joel R Buchanan, DuWayne L. Willett

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSNOMED CTElectronic health recordExtensional definitionValue (mathematics)Health recordsComputer scienceData miningTerminologyMachine learningHealth careGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Defining clinical phenotypes from electronic health record (EHR)-derived data proves crucial for clinical decision support, population health endeavors, and translational research. EHR diagnoses now commonly draw from a finely grained clinical terminology-either native SNOMED CT or a vendor-supplied terminology mapped to SNOMED CT concepts as the standard for EHR interoperability. Accordingly, electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) increasingly define clinical phenotypes with SNOMED CT value sets. The work of creating and maintaining list-based value sets proves daunting, as does insuring that their contents accurately represent the clinically intended condition. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the research was to compare an intensional (concept hierarchy-based) versus extensional (list-based) value set approach to defining clinical phenotypes using SNOMED CT-encoded data from EHRs by evaluating value set conciseness, time to create, and completeness. METHODS: Starting from published Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) high-priority eCQMs, we selected 10 clinical conditions referenced by those eCQMs. For each, the published SNOMED CT list-based (extensional) value set was downloaded from the Value Set Authority Center (VSAC). Ten corresponding SNOMED CT hierarchy-based intensional value sets for the same conditions were identified within our EHR. From each hierarchy-based intensional value set, an exactly equivalent full extensional value set was derived enumerating all included descendant SNOMED CT concepts. Comparisons were then made between (1) VSAC-downloaded list-based (extensional) value sets, (2) corresponding hierarchy-based intensional value sets for the same conditions, and (3) derived list-based (extensional) value sets exactly equivalent to the hierarchy-based intensional value sets. Value set conciseness was assessed by the number of SNOMED CT concepts needed for definition. Time to construct the value sets for local use was measured. Value set completeness was assessed by comparing contents of the downloaded extensional versus intensional value sets. Two measures of content completeness were made: for individual SNOMED CT concepts and for the mapped diagnosis clinical terms available for selection within the EHR by clinicians. RESULTS: The 10 hierarchy-based intensional value sets proved far simpler and faster to construct than exactly equivalent derived extensional value set lists, requiring a median 3 versus 78 concepts to define and 5 versus 37 minutes to build. The hierarchy-based intensional value sets also proved more complete: in comparison, the 10 downloaded 2018 extensional value sets contained a median of just 35% of the intensional value sets' SNOMED CT concepts and 65% of mapped EHR clinical terms. CONCLUSIONS: In the EHR era, defining conditions preferentially should employ SNOMED CT concept hierarchy-based (intensional) value sets rather than extensional lists. By doing so, clinical guideline and eCQM authors can more readily engage specialists in vetting condition subtypes to include and exclude, and streamline broad EHR implementation of condition-specific decision support promoting guideline adherence for patient benefit.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0140.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.194
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207