The National COVID Cohort Collaborative: Analyses of Original and Computationally Derived Electronic Health Record Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computationally derived ("synthetic") data can enable the creation and analysis of clinical, laboratory, and diagnostic data as if they were the original electronic health record data. Synthetic data can support data sharing to answer critical research questions to address the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare the results from analyses of synthetic data to those from original data and assess the strengths and limitations of leveraging computationally derived data for research purposes. METHODS: We used the National COVID Cohort Collaborative's instance of MDClone, a big data platform with data-synthesizing capabilities (MDClone Ltd). We downloaded electronic health record data from 34 National COVID Cohort Collaborative institutional partners and tested three use cases, including (1) exploring the distributions of key features of the COVID-19-positive cohort; (2) training and testing predictive models for assessing the risk of admission among these patients; and (3) determining geospatial and temporal COVID-19-related measures and outcomes, and constructing their epidemic curves. We compared the results from synthetic data to those from original data using traditional statistics, machine learning approaches, and temporal and spatial representations of the data. RESULTS: For each use case, the results of the synthetic data analyses successfully mimicked those of the original data such that the distributions of the data were similar and the predictive models demonstrated comparable performance. Although the synthetic and original data yielded overall nearly the same results, there were exceptions that included an odds ratio on either side of the null in multivariable analyses (0.97 vs 1.01) and differences in the magnitude of epidemic curves constructed for zip codes with low population counts. CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents the results of each use case and outlines key considerations for the use of synthetic data, examining their role in collaborative research for faster insights.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".