MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042621345 · doi:10.2196/17687

What You Need to Know Before Implementing a Clinical Research Data Warehouse: Comparative Review of Integrated Data Repositories in Health Care Institutions

2020· review· en· W3042621345 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kristina Gagalova, M Angelica Leon Elizalde, Élodie Portales-Casamar, Matthias Görges

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData warehouseComputer scienceData scienceVariety (cybernetics)ImplementationData integrationReuseArchitectureSet (abstract data type)Process managementDatabaseSoftware engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Integrated data repositories (IDRs), also referred to as clinical data warehouses, are platforms used for the integration of several data sources through specialized analytical tools that facilitate data processing and analysis. IDRs offer several opportunities for clinical data reuse, and the number of institutions implementing an IDR has grown steadily in the past decade. OBJECTIVE: The architectural choices of major IDRs are highly diverse and determining their differences can be overwhelming. This review aims to explore the underlying models and common features of IDRs, provide a high-level overview for those entering the field, and propose a set of guiding principles for small- to medium-sized health institutions embarking on IDR implementation. METHODS: We reviewed manuscripts published in peer-reviewed scientific literature between 2008 and 2020, and selected those that specifically describe IDR architectures. Of 255 shortlisted articles, we found 34 articles describing 29 different architectures. The different IDRs were analyzed for common features and classified according to their data processing and integration solution choices. RESULTS: Despite common trends in the selection of standard terminologies and data models, the IDRs examined showed heterogeneity in the underlying architecture design. We identified 4 common architecture models that use different approaches for data processing and integration. These different approaches were driven by a variety of features such as data sources, whether the IDR was for a single institution or a collaborative project, the intended primary data user, and purpose (research-only or including clinical or operational decision making). CONCLUSIONS: IDR implementations are diverse and complex undertakings, which benefit from being preceded by an evaluation of requirements and definition of scope in the early planning stage. Factors such as data source diversity and intended users of the IDR influence data flow and synchronization, both of which are crucial factors in IDR architecture planning.

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.145
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.145
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0210.033
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.765
GPT teacher head0.743
Teacher spread0.022 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations56
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207