Browsing by Author "Cimino, James J."

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A research agenda to support the development and implementation of genomics-based clinical informatics tools and resources
    (Oxford University Press, 2022) Wiley, Ken; Findley, Laura; Goldrich, Madison; Rakhra-Burris, Tejinder K.; Stevens, Ana; Williams, Pamela; Bult, Carol J.; Chisholm, Rex; Deverka, Patricia; Ginsburg, Geoffrey S.; Green, Eric D.; Jarvik, Gail; Mensah, George A.; Ramos, Erin; Relling, Mary V.; Roden, Dan M.; Rowley, Robb; Alterovitz, Gil; Aronson, Samuel; Bastarache, Lisa; Cimino, James J.; Crowgey, Erin L.; Del Fiol, Guilherme; Freimuth, Robert R.; Hoffman, Mark A.; Jeff, Janina; Johnson, Kevin; Kawamoto, Kensaku; Madhavan, Subha; Mendonca, Eneida A.; Ohno-Machado, Lucila; Pratap, Siddharth; Overby Taylor, Casey; Ritchie, Marylyn D.; Walton, Nephi; Weng, Chunhua; Zayas-Cabán, Teresa; Manolio, Teri A.; Williams, Marc S.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Objective: The Genomic Medicine Working Group of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research virtually hosted its 13th genomic medicine meeting titled "Developing a Clinical Genomic Informatics Research Agenda". The meeting's goal was to articulate a research strategy to develop Genomics-based Clinical Informatics Tools and Resources (GCIT) to improve the detection, treatment, and reporting of genetic disorders in clinical settings. Materials and methods: Experts from government agencies, the private sector, and academia in genomic medicine and clinical informatics were invited to address the meeting's goals. Invitees were also asked to complete a survey to assess important considerations needed to develop a genomic-based clinical informatics research strategy. Results: Outcomes from the meeting included identifying short-term research needs, such as designing and implementing standards-based interfaces between laboratory information systems and electronic health records, as well as long-term projects, such as identifying and addressing barriers related to the establishment and implementation of genomic data exchange systems that, in turn, the research community could help address. Discussion: Discussions centered on identifying gaps and barriers that impede the use of GCIT in genomic medicine. Emergent themes from the meeting included developing an implementation science framework, defining a value proposition for all stakeholders, fostering engagement with patients and partners to develop applications under patient control, promoting the use of relevant clinical workflows in research, and lowering related barriers to regulatory processes. Another key theme was recognizing pervasive biases in data and information systems, algorithms, access, value, and knowledge repositories and identifying ways to resolve them.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Systematic Approach to Configuring MetaMap for Optimal Performance
    (Thieme, 2022) Jing, Xia; Indani, Akash; Hubig, Nina; Min, Hua; Gong, Yang; Cimino, James J.; Sittig, Dean F.; Rennert, Lior; Robinson, David; Biondich, Paul; Wright, Adam; Nøhr, Christian; Law, Timothy; Faxvaag, Arild; Gimbel, Ronald; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Background: MetaMap is a valuable tool for processing biomedical texts to identify concepts. Although MetaMap is highly configurative, configuration decisions are not straightforward. Objective: To develop a systematic, data-driven methodology for configuring MetaMap for optimal performance. Methods: MetaMap, the word2vec model, and the phrase model were used to build a pipeline. For unsupervised training, the phrase and word2vec models used abstracts related to clinical decision support as input. During testing, MetaMap was configured with the default option, one behavior option, and two behavior options. For each configuration, cosine and soft cosine similarity scores between identified entities and gold-standard terms were computed for 40 annotated abstracts (422 sentences). The similarity scores were used to calculate and compare the overall percentages of exact matches, similar matches, and missing gold-standard terms among the abstracts for each configuration. The results were manually spot-checked. The precision, recall, and F-measure (β =1) were calculated. Results: The percentages of exact matches and missing gold-standard terms were 0.6-0.79 and 0.09-0.3 for one behavior option, and 0.56-0.8 and 0.09-0.3 for two behavior options, respectively. The percentages of exact matches and missing terms for soft cosine similarity scores exceeded those for cosine similarity scores. The average precision, recall, and F-measure were 0.59, 0.82, and 0.68 for exact matches, and 1.00, 0.53, and 0.69 for missing terms, respectively. Conclusion: We demonstrated a systematic approach that provides objective and accurate evidence guiding MetaMap configurations for optimizing performance. Combining objective evidence and the current practice of using principles, experience, and intuitions outperforms a single strategy in MetaMap configurations. Our methodology, reference codes, measurements, results, and workflow are valuable references for optimizing and configuring MetaMap.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Developing real‐world evidence from real‐world data: Transforming raw data into analytical datasets
    (Wiley, 2021-10-14) Bastarache, Lisa; Brown, Jeffrey S.; Cimino, James J.; Dorr, David A.; Embi, Peter J.; Payne, Philip R. O.; Wilcox, Adam B.; Weiner, Mark G.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Development of evidence-based practice requires practice-based evidence, which can be acquired through analysis of real-world data from electronic health records (EHRs). The EHR contains volumes of information about patients-physical measurements, diagnoses, exposures, and markers of health behavior-that can be used to create algorithms for risk stratification or to gain insight into associations between exposures, interventions, and outcomes. But to transform real-world data into reliable real-world evidence, one must not only choose the correct analytical methods but also have an understanding of the quality, detail, provenance, and organization of the underlying source data and address the differences in these characteristics across sites when conducting analyses that span institutions. This manuscript explores the idiosyncrasies inherent in the capture, formatting, and standardization of EHR data and discusses the clinical domain and informatics competencies required to transform the raw clinical, real-world data into high-quality, fit-for-purpose analytical data sets used to generate real-world evidence.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Do electronic health record systems "dumb down" clinicians?
    (Oxford University Press, 2022) Melton, Genevieve B.; Cimino, James J.; Lehmann, Christoph U.; Sengstack, Patricia R.; Smith, Joshua C.; Tierney, William M.; Miller, Randolph A.; Community and Global Health, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health
    A panel sponsored by the American College of Medical Informatics (ACMI) at the 2021 AMIA Symposium addressed the provocative question: "Are Electronic Health Records dumbing down clinicians?" After reviewing electronic health record (EHR) development and evolution, the panel discussed how EHR use can impair care delivery. Both suboptimal functionality during EHR use and longer-term effects outside of EHR use can reduce clinicians' efficiencies, reasoning abilities, and knowledge. Panel members explored potential solutions to problems discussed. Progress will require significant engagement from clinician-users, educators, health systems, commercial vendors, regulators, and policy makers. Future EHR systems must become more user-focused and scalable and enable providers to work smarter to deliver improved care.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Opportunity for Genotype-Guided Prescribing Among Adult Patients in 11 US Health Systems.
    (Wiley, 2021-07) Hicks, J. Kevin; El Rouby, Nihal; Ong, Henry H.; Schildcrout, Jonathan S.; Ramsey, Laura B.; Shi, Yaping; Anne Tang, Leigh; Aquilante, Christina L.; Beitelshees, Amber L.; Blake, Kathryn V.; Cimino, James J.; Davis, Brittney H.; Empey, Philip E.; Kao, David P.; Lemkin, Daniel L.; Limdi, Nita A.; P Lipori, Gloria; Rosenman, Marc B.; Skaar, Todd C.; Teal, Evgenia; Tuteja, Sony; Wiley, Laura K.; Williams, Helen; Winterstein, Almut G.; Van Driest, Sara L.; Cavallari, Larisa H.; Peterson, Josh F.
    The value of utilizing a multigene pharmacogenetic panel to tailor pharmacotherapy is contingent on the prevalence of prescribed medications with an actionable pharmacogenetic association. The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) has categorized over 35 gene-drug pairs as "level A," for which there is sufficiently strong evidence to recommend that genetic information be used to guide drug prescribing. The opportunity to use genetic information to tailor pharmacotherapy among adult patients was determined by elucidating the exposure to CPIC level A drugs among 11 Implementing Genomics In Practice Network (IGNITE)-affiliated health systems across the US. Inpatient and/or outpatient electronic-prescribing data were collected between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2016 for patients ≥ 18 years of age who had at least one medical encounter that was eligible for drug prescribing in a calendar year. A median of ~ 7.2 million adult patients was available for assessment of drug prescribing per year. From 2011 to 2016, the annual estimated prevalence of exposure to at least one CPIC level A drug prescribed to unique patients ranged between 15,719 (95% confidence interval (CI): 15,658-15,781) in 2011 to 17,335 (CI: 17,283-17,386) in 2016 per 100,000 patients. The estimated annual exposure to at least 2 drugs was above 7,200 per 100,000 patients in most years of the study, reaching an apex of 7,660 (CI: 7,632-7,687) per 100,000 patients in 2014. An estimated 4,748 per 100,000 prescribing events were potentially eligible for a genotype-guided intervention. Results from this study show that a significant portion of adults treated at medical institutions across the United States is exposed to medications for which genetic information, if available, should be used to guide prescribing.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Prescribing Prevalence of Medications With Potential Genotype-Guided Dosing in Pediatric Patients
    (American Medical Association, 2020-12) Ramsey, Laura B.; Ong, Henry H.; Schildcrout, Jonathan S.; Shi, Yaping; Tang, Leigh Anne; Hicks, J. Kevin; El Rouby, Nihal; Cavallari, Larisa H.; Tuteja, Sony; Aquilante, Christina L.; Beitelshees, Amber L.; Lemkin, Daniel L.; Blake, Kathryn V.; Williams, Helen; Cimino, James J.; Davis, Brittney H.; Limdi, Nita A.; Empey, Philip E.; Horvat, Christopher M.; Kao, David P.; Lipori, Gloria P.; Rosenman, Marc B.; Skaar, Todd C.; Teal, Evgenia; Winterstein, Almut G.; Obeng, Aniwaa Owusu; Salyakina, Daria; Gupta, Apeksha; Gruber, Joshua; McCafferty-Fernandez, Jennifer; Bishop, Jeffrey R.; Rivers, Zach; Benner, Ashley; Tamraz, Bani; Long-Boyle, Janel; Peterson, Josh F.; Van Driest, Sara L.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Importance: Genotype-guided prescribing in pediatrics could prevent adverse drug reactions and improve therapeutic response. Clinical pharmacogenetic implementation guidelines are available for many medications commonly prescribed to children. Frequencies of medication prescription and actionable genotypes (genotypes where a prescribing change may be indicated) inform the potential value of pharmacogenetic implementation. Objective: To assess potential opportunities for genotype-guided prescribing in pediatric populations among multiple health systems by examining the prevalence of prescriptions for each drug with the highest level of evidence (Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium level A) and estimating the prevalence of potential actionable prescribing decisions. Design, setting, and participants: This serial cross-sectional study of prescribing prevalences in 16 health systems included electronic health records data from pediatric inpatient and outpatient encounters from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2017. The health systems included academic medical centers with free-standing children's hospitals and community hospitals that were part of an adult health care system. Participants included approximately 2.9 million patients younger than 21 years observed per year. Data were analyzed from June 5, 2018, to April 14, 2020. Exposures: Prescription of 38 level A medications based on electronic health records. Main outcomes and measures: Annual prevalence of level A medication prescribing and estimated actionable exposures, calculated by combining estimated site-year prevalences across sites with each site weighted equally. Results: Data from approximately 2.9 million pediatric patients (median age, 8 [interquartile range, 2-16] years; 50.7% female, 62.3% White) were analyzed for a typical calendar year. The annual prescribing prevalence of at least 1 level A drug ranged from 7987 to 10 629 per 100 000 patients with increasing trends from 2011 to 2014. The most prescribed level A drug was the antiemetic ondansetron (annual prevalence of exposure, 8107 [95% CI, 8077-8137] per 100 000 children). Among commonly prescribed opioids, annual prevalence per 100 000 patients was 295 (95% CI, 273-317) for tramadol, 571 (95% CI, 557-586) for codeine, and 2116 (95% CI, 2097-2135) for oxycodone. The antidepressants citalopram, escitalopram, and amitriptyline were also commonly prescribed (annual prevalence, approximately 250 per 100 000 patients for each). Estimated prevalences of actionable exposures were highest for oxycodone and ondansetron (>300 per 100 000 patients annually). CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 substrates were more frequently prescribed than medications influenced by other genes. Conclusions and relevance: These findings suggest that opportunities for pharmacogenetic implementation among pediatric patients in the US are abundant. As expected, the greatest opportunity exists with implementing CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 pharmacogenetic guidance for commonly prescribed antiemetics, analgesics, and antidepressants.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Sustainability considerations for clinical and translational research informatics infrastructure
    (Cambridge University Press, 2018-10) Obeid, Jihad S.; Tarczy-Hornoch, Peter; Harris, Paul A.; Barnett, William K.; Anderson, Nicholas R.; Embi, Peter J.; Hogan, William R.; Bell, Douglas S.; McIntosh, Leslie D.; Knosp, Boyd; Tachinardi, Umberto; Cimino, James J.; Wehbe, Firas H.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    A robust biomedical informatics infrastructure is essential for academic health centers engaged in translational research. There are no templates for what such an infrastructure encompasses or how it is funded. An informatics workgroup within the Clinical and Translational Science Awards network conducted an analysis to identify the scope, governance, and funding of this infrastructure. After we identified the essential components of an informatics infrastructure, we surveyed informatics leaders at network institutions about the governance and sustainability of the different components. Results from 42 survey respondents showed significant variations in governance and sustainability; however, some trends also emerged. Core informatics components such as electronic data capture systems, electronic health records data repositories, and related tools had mixed models of funding including, fee-for-service, extramural grants, and institutional support. Several key components such as regulatory systems (e.g., electronic Institutional Review Board [IRB] systems, grants, and contracts), security systems, data warehouses, and clinical trials management systems were overwhelmingly supported as institutional infrastructure. The findings highlighted in this report are worth noting for academic health centers and funding agencies involved in planning current and future informatics infrastructure, which provides the foundation for a robust, data-driven clinical and translational research program.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C): Rationale, design, infrastructure, and deployment
    (Oxford University Press, 2021) Haendel, Melissa A.; Chute, Christopher G.; Bennett, Tellen D.; Eichmann, David A.; Guinney, Justin; Kibbe, Warren A.; Payne, Philip R. O.; Pfaff, Emily R.; Robinson, Peter N.; Saltz, Joel H.; Spratt, Heidi; Suver, Christine; Wilbanks, John; Wilcox, Adam B.; Williams, Andrew E.; Wu, Chunlei; Blacketer, Clair; Bradford, Robert L.; Cimino, James J.; Clark, Marshall; Colmenares, Evan W.; Francis, Patricia A.; Gabriel, Davera; Graves, Alexis; Hemadri, Raju; Hong, Stephanie S.; Hripscak, George; Jiao, Dazhi; Klann, Jeffrey G.; Kostka, Kristin; Lee, Adam M.; Lehmann, Harold P.; Lingrey, Lora; Miller, Robert T.; Morris, Michele; Murphy, Shawn N.; Natarajan, Karthik; Palchuk, Matvey B.; Sheikh, Usman; Solbrig, Harold; Visweswaran, Shyam; Walden, Anita; Walters, Kellie M.; Weber, Griffin M.; Zhang, Xiaohan Tanner; Zhu, Richard L.; Amor, Benjamin; Girvin, Andrew T.; Manna, Amin; Qureshi, Nabeel; Kurilla, Michael G.; Michael, Sam G.; Portilla, Lili M.; Rutter, Joni L.; Austin, Christopher P.; Gersing, Ken R.; Biomedical Engineering and Informatics, Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering
    Objective: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses societal challenges that require expeditious data and knowledge sharing. Though organizational clinical data are abundant, these are largely inaccessible to outside researchers. Statistical, machine learning, and causal analyses are most successful with large-scale data beyond what is available in any given organization. Here, we introduce the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), an open science community focused on analyzing patient-level data from many centers. Materials and methods: The Clinical and Translational Science Award Program and scientific community created N3C to overcome technical, regulatory, policy, and governance barriers to sharing and harmonizing individual-level clinical data. We developed solutions to extract, aggregate, and harmonize data across organizations and data models, and created a secure data enclave to enable efficient, transparent, and reproducible collaborative analytics. Results: Organized in inclusive workstreams, we created legal agreements and governance for organizations and researchers; data extraction scripts to identify and ingest positive, negative, and possible COVID-19 cases; a data quality assurance and harmonization pipeline to create a single harmonized dataset; population of the secure data enclave with data, machine learning, and statistical analytics tools; dissemination mechanisms; and a synthetic data pilot to democratize data access. Conclusions: The N3C has demonstrated that a multisite collaborative learning health network can overcome barriers to rapidly build a scalable infrastructure incorporating multiorganizational clinical data for COVID-19 analytics. We expect this effort to save lives by enabling rapid collaboration among clinicians, researchers, and data scientists to identify treatments and specialized care and thereby reduce the immediate and long-term impacts of COVID-19.