Richesson, Rachel

Abstract Objectives Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted as part of routine clinical care and therefore use data collected from real-world data sources, such as electronic health record systems and administrative claims. A common approach for using these types of data across all phases of trial conduct is to create a computable phenotype (an explicitly defined data query data, including specified data types, data codes, and logical parameters) to capture patients with a clinical condition, exposure, symptom, characteristic, treatment, or outcome of interest. Materials and Methods The Electronic Health Record (EHR) Core Working Group of the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory captured the experiences of investigators in developing, adapting, and applying computable phenotype definitions in their studies. Results Four case studies describe different approaches to developing and using computable phenotypes in pragmatic trials. Discussion We recommend: (1) developing computable phenotypes as part of a team with multiple areas of expertise; (2) appropriate validation; (3) dissemination of salient details regarding phenotype creation; and (4) capturing and reporting any modifications made to phenotypes during the conduct of the trial. Conclusion A range of issues and decisions influence how computable phenotypes are developed and used in pragmatic clinical trials. Multidisciplinary teams that understand the context of the data, including the reason the data are collected and potential sources of bias, are best suited for the development and validation of phenotypes for ePCTs.

Abstract Background Computational phenotyping from electronic health records (EHRs) is essential for clinical research, decision support, and quality/population health assessment, but the proliferation of algorithms for the same conditions makes it difficult to identify which algorithm is most appropriate for reuse. Objective To develop a framework for assessing phenotyping algorithm fitness for purpose and reuse. Fitness for Purpose Phenotyping algorithms are fit for purpose when they identify the intended population with performance characteristics appropriate for the intended application. Fitness for Reuse Phenotyping algorithms are fit for reuse when the algorithm is implementable and generalizable—that is, it identifies the same intended population with similar performance characteristics when applied to a new setting. Conclusions The PhenoFit framework provides a structured approach to evaluate and adapt phenotyping algorithms for new contexts increasing efficiency and consistency of identifying patient populations from EHRs.

Abstract Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) play a vital role in addressing current population health problems, and their use of electronic health record (EHR) systems promises efficiencies that will increase the speed and volume of relevant and generalizable research. However, as the number of ePCTs using EHR-derived data grows, so does the risk that research will become more vulnerable to biases due to differences in data capture and access to care for different subsets of the population, thereby propagating inequities in health and the healthcare system. We identify 3 challenges—incomplete and variable capture of data on social determinants of health, lack of representation of vulnerable populations that do not access or receive treatment, and data loss due to variable use of technology—that exacerbate bias when working with EHR data and offer recommendations and examples of ways to actively mitigate bias.

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this study was to analyze a publicly available sample of rule-based phenotype definitions to characterize and evaluate the variability of logical constructs used.Materials and MethodsA sample of 33 preexisting phenotype definitions used in research that are represented using Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources and Clinical Quality Language (CQL) was analyzed using automated analysis of the computable representation of the CQL libraries.ResultsMost of the phenotype definitions include narrative descriptions and flowcharts, while few provide pseudocode or executable artifacts. Most use 4 or fewer medical terminologies. The number of codes used ranges from 5 to 6865, and value sets from 1 to 19. We found that the most common expressions used were literal, data, and logical expressions. Aggregate and arithmetic expressions are the least common. Expression depth ranges from 4 to 27.DiscussionDespite the range of conditions, we found that all of the phenotype definitions consisted of logical criteria, representing both clinical and operational logic, and tabular data, consisting of codes from standard terminologies and keywords for natural language processing. The total number and variety of expressions are low, which may be to simplify implementation, or authors may limit complexity due to data availability constraints.ConclusionsThe phenotype definitions analyzed show significant variation in specific logical, arithmetic, and other operators but are all composed of the same high-level components, namely tabular data and logical expressions. A standard representation for phenotype definitions should support these formats and be modular to support localization and shared logic.

AbstractThe volume of biomedical knowledge is growing exponentially and much of this knowledge is represented in computer executable formats, such as models, algorithms and programmatic code. There is a growing need to apply this knowledge to improve health in Learning Health Systems, health delivery organizations, and other settings. However, most organizations do not yet have the infrastructure required to consume and apply computable knowledge, and national policies and standards adoption are not sufficient to ensure that it is discoverable and used safely and fairly, nor is there widespread experience in the process of knowledge implementation as clinical decision support. The Mobilizing Computable Biomedical Knowledge (MCBK) community formed in 2016 to address these needs. This report summarizes the main outputs of the Second Annual MCBK public meeting, which was held at the National Institutes of Health on July 18‐19, 2019 and brought together over 150 participants from various domains to frame and address important dimensions for mobilizing CBK.