Transforming Primary Care Data Into the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model: Development and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patient-monitoring software generates a large amount of data that can be reused for clinical audits and scientific research. The Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) consortium developed the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM) to standardize electronic health record data and promote large-scale observational and longitudinal research. Objective: This study aimed to transform primary care data into the OMOP CDM format. Methods: We extracted primary care data from electronic health records at a multidisciplinary health center in Wattrelos, France. We performed structural mapping between the design of our local primary care database and the OMOP CDM tables and fields. Local French vocabularies concepts were mapped to OHDSI standard vocabularies. To validate the implementation of primary care data into the OMOP CDM format, we applied a set of queries. A practical application was achieved through the development of a dashboard. Results: Data from 18,395 patients were implemented into the OMOP CDM, corresponding to 592,226 consultations over a period of 20 years. A total of 18 OMOP CDM tables were implemented. A total of 17 local vocabularies were identified as being related to primary care and corresponded to patient characteristics (sex, location, year of birth, and race), units of measurement, biometric measures, laboratory test results, medical histories, and drug prescriptions. During semantic mapping, 10,221 primary care concepts were mapped to standard OHDSI concepts. Five queries were used to validate the OMOP CDM by comparing the results obtained after the completion of the transformations with the results obtained in the source software. Lastly, a prototype dashboard was developed to visualize the activity of the health center, the laboratory test results, and the drug prescription data. Conclusions: Primary care data from a French health care facility have been implemented into the OMOP CDM format. Data concerning demographics, units, measurements, and primary care consultation steps were already available in OHDSI vocabularies. Laboratory test results and drug prescription data were mapped to available vocabularies and structured in the final model. A dashboard application provided health care professionals with feedback on their practice.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".