MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399461675 · doi:10.2196/59187

Integrating Clinical Data and Medical Imaging in Lung Cancer: Feasibility Study Using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model Extension

2024· article· en· W4399461675 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hyerim Ji, Seok Kim, Leonard Sunwoo, Sowon Jang, Ho‐Young Lee, Sooyoung Yoo

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLung cancerPreprintComputer scienceExtension (predicate logic)Data curationData miningMedical physicsMedicineInformation retrievalPathologyProgramming languageWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Digital transformation, particularly the integration of medical imaging with clinical data, is vital in personalized medicine. The Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM) standardizes health data. However, integrating medical imaging remains a challenge. OBJECTIVE: This study proposes a method for combining medical imaging data with the OMOP CDM to improve multimodal research. METHODS: Our approach included the analysis and selection of digital imaging and communications in medicine header tags, validation of data formats, and alignment according to the OMOP CDM framework. The Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources ImagingStudy profile guided our consistency in column naming and definitions. Imaging Common Data Model (I-CDM), constructed using the entity-attribute-value model, facilitates scalable and efficient medical imaging data management. For patients with lung cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2017, we introduced 4 new tables-IMAGING_STUDY, IMAGING_SERIES, IMAGING_ANNOTATION, and FILEPATH-to standardize various imaging-related data and link to clinical data. RESULTS: This framework underscores the effectiveness of I-CDM in enhancing our understanding of lung cancer diagnostics and treatment strategies. The implementation of the I-CDM tables enabled the structured organization of a comprehensive data set, including 282,098 IMAGING_STUDY, 5,674,425 IMAGING_SERIES, and 48,536 IMAGING_ANNOTATION records, illustrating the extensive scope and depth of the approach. A scenario-based analysis using actual data from patients with lung cancer underscored the feasibility of our approach. A data quality check applying 44 specific rules confirmed the high integrity of the constructed data set, with all checks successfully passed, underscoring the reliability of our findings. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that I-CDM can improve the integration and analysis of medical imaging and clinical data. By addressing the challenges in data standardization and management, our approach contributes toward enhancing diagnostics and treatment strategies. Future research should expand the application of I-CDM to diverse disease populations and explore its wide-ranging utility for medical conditions.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.311
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207