Application of Spatial Analysis on Electronic Health Records to Characterize Patient Phenotypes: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) commonly contain patient addresses that provide valuable data for geocoding and spatial analysis, enabling more comprehensive descriptions of individual patients for clinical purposes. Despite the widespread use of EHRs in clinical decision support and interventions, no systematic review has examined the extent to which spatial analysis is used to characterize patient phenotypes. OBJECTIVE: This study reviews advanced spatial analyses that used individual-level health data from EHRs within the United States to characterize patient phenotypes. METHODS: We systematically evaluated English-language, peer-reviewed studies from the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases from inception to August 20, 2023, without imposing constraints on study design or specific health domains. RESULTS: A substantial proportion of studies (>85%) were limited to geocoding or basic mapping without implementing advanced spatial statistical analysis, leaving only 49 studies that met the eligibility criteria. These studies used diverse spatial methods, with a predominant focus on clustering techniques, while spatiotemporal analysis (frequentist and Bayesian) and modeling were less common. A noteworthy surge (n=42, 86%) in publications was observed after 2017. The publications investigated a variety of adult and pediatric clinical areas, including infectious disease, endocrinology, and cardiology, using phenotypes defined over a range of data domains such as demographics, diagnoses, and visits. The primary health outcomes investigated were asthma, hypertension, and diabetes. Notably, patient phenotypes involving genomics, imaging, and notes were limited. CONCLUSIONS: This review underscores the growing interest in spatial analysis of EHR-derived data and highlights knowledge gaps in clinical health, phenotype domains, and spatial methodologies. We suggest that future research should focus on addressing these gaps and harnessing spatial analysis to enhance individual patient contexts and clinical decision support.
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 | 0.016 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".