Generate Analysis-Ready Data for Real-world Evidence: Tutorial for Harnessing Electronic Health Records With Advanced Informatic Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for establishing the efficacy and safety of a medical treatment, real-world evidence (RWE) generated from real-world data has been vital in postapproval monitoring and is being promoted for the regulatory process of experimental therapies. An emerging source of real-world data is electronic health records (EHRs), which contain detailed information on patient care in both structured (eg, diagnosis codes) and unstructured (eg, clinical notes and images) forms. Despite the granularity of the data available in EHRs, the critical variables required to reliably assess the relationship between a treatment and clinical outcome are challenging to extract. To address this fundamental challenge and accelerate the reliable use of EHRs for RWE, we introduce an integrated data curation and modeling pipeline consisting of 4 modules that leverage recent advances in natural language processing, computational phenotyping, and causal modeling techniques with noisy data. Module 1 consists of techniques for data harmonization. We use natural language processing to recognize clinical variables from RCT design documents and map the extracted variables to EHR features with description matching and knowledge networks. Module 2 then develops techniques for cohort construction using advanced phenotyping algorithms to both identify patients with diseases of interest and define the treatment arms. Module 3 introduces methods for variable curation, including a list of existing tools to extract baseline variables from different sources (eg, codified, free text, and medical imaging) and end points of various types (eg, death, binary, temporal, and numerical). Finally, module 4 presents validation and robust modeling methods, and we propose a strategy to create gold-standard labels for EHR variables of interest to validate data curation quality and perform subsequent causal modeling for RWE. In addition to the workflow proposed in our pipeline, we also develop a reporting guideline for RWE that covers the necessary information to facilitate transparent reporting and reproducibility of results. Moreover, our pipeline is highly data driven, enhancing study data with a rich variety of publicly available information and knowledge sources. We also showcase our pipeline and provide guidance on the deployment of relevant tools by revisiting the emulation of the Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group Trial on laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy in patients with early-stage colon cancer. We also draw on existing literature on EHR emulation of RCTs together with our own studies with the Mass General Brigham EHR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.034 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".