VisualDecisionLinc: A visual analytics approach for comparative effectiveness-based clinical decision support in psychiatry

Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) is designed to provide research evidence on the effectiveness and risks of different therapeutic options on the basis of data compiled from subpopulations of patients with similar medical conditions. Electronic Health Record (EHR) system contain large volumes of patient data that could be used for CER, but the data contained in EHR system are typically accessible only in formats that are not conducive to rapid synthesis and interpretation of therapeutic outcomes. In the time-pressured clinical setting, clinicians faced with large amounts of patient data in formats that are not readily interpretable often feel 'information overload'. Decision support tools that enable rapid access at the point of care to aggregate data on the most effective therapeutic outcomes derived from CER would greatly aid the clinical decision-making process and individualize patient care. In this manuscript, we highlight the role that visual analytics can play in CER-based clinical decision support. We developed a 'VisualDecisionLinc' (VDL) tool prototype that uses visual analytics to provide summarized CER-derived data views to facilitate rapid interpretation of large amounts of data. We highlight the flexibility that visual analytics offers to gain an overview of therapeutic options and outcomes and if needed, to instantly customize the evidence to the needs of the patient or clinician. The VDL tool uses visual analytics to help the clinician evaluate and understand the effectiveness and risk of different therapeutic options for different subpopulations of patients

Association of post-COVID phenotypic manifestations with new-onset psychiatric disease

Acute COVID-19 infection can be followed by diverse clinical manifestations referred to as Post Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV2 Infection (PASC). Studies have shown an increased risk of being diagnosed with new-onset psychiatric disease following a diagnosis of acute COVID-19. However, it was unclear whether non-psychiatric PASC-associated manifestations (PASC-AMs) are associated with an increased risk of new-onset psychiatric disease following COVID-19. A retrospective electronic health record (EHR) cohort study of 2,391,006 individuals with acute COVID-19 was performed to evaluate whether non-psychiatric PASC-AMs are associated with new-onset psychiatric disease. Data were obtained from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), which has EHR data from 76 clinical organizations. EHR codes were mapped to 151 non-psychiatric PASC-AMs recorded 28-120 days following SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and before diagnosis of new-onset psychiatric disease. Association of newly diagnosed psychiatric disease with age, sex, race, pre-existing comorbidities, and PASC-AMs in seven categories was assessed by logistic regression. There were significant associations between a diagnosis of any psychiatric disease and five categories of PASC-AMs with odds ratios highest for neurological, cardiovascular, and constitutional PASC-AMs with odds ratios of 1.31, 1.29, and 1.23 respectively. Secondary analysis revealed that the proportions of 50 individual clinical features significantly differed between patients diagnosed with different psychiatric diseases. Our study provides evidence for association between non-psychiatric PASC-AMs and the incidence of newly diagnosed psychiatric disease. Significant associations were found for features related to multiple organ systems. This information could prove useful in understanding risk stratification for new-onset psychiatric disease following COVID-19. Prospective studies are needed to corroborate these findings

Sex, obesity, diabetes, and exposure to particulate matter among patients with severe asthma: Scientific insights from a comparative analysis of open clinical data sources during a five-day hackathon.

This special communication describes activities, products, and lessons learned from a recent hackathon that was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences via the Biomedical Data Translator program (\u27Translator\u27). Specifically, Translator team members self-organized and worked together to conceptualize and execute, over a five-day period, a multi-institutional clinical research study that aimed to examine, using open clinical data sources, relationships between sex, obesity, diabetes, and exposure to airborne fine particulate matter among patients with severe asthma. The goal was to develop a proof of concept that this new model of collaboration and data sharing could effectively produce meaningful scientific results and generate new scientific hypotheses. Three Translator Clinical Knowledge Sources, each of which provides open access (via Application Programming Interfaces) to data derived from the electronic health record systems of major academic institutions, served as the source of study data. Jupyter Python notebooks, shared in GitHub repositories, were used to call the knowledge sources and analyze and integrate the results. The results replicated established or suspected relationships between sex, obesity, diabetes, exposure to airborne fine particulate matter, and severe asthma. In addition, the results demonstrated specific differences across the three Translator Clinical Knowledge Sources, suggesting cohort- and/or environment-specific factors related to the services themselves or the catchment area from which each service derives patient data. Collectively, this special communication demonstrates the power and utility of intense, team-oriented hackathons and offers general technical, organizational, and scientific lessons learned

Privacy‐preserving record linkage across disparate institutions and datasets to enable a learning health system: The national COVID cohort collaborative (N3C) experience

Abstract Introduction Research driven by real‐world clinical data is increasingly vital to enabling learning health systems, but integrating such data from across disparate health systems is challenging. As part of the NCATS National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), the N3C Data Enclave was established as a centralized repository of deidentified and harmonized COVID‐19 patient data from institutions across the US. However, making this data most useful for research requires linking it with information such as mortality data, images, and viral variants. The objective of this project was to establish privacy‐preserving record linkage (PPRL) methods to ensure that patient‐level EHR data remains secure and private when governance‐approved linkages with other datasets occur. Methods Separate agreements and approval processes govern N3C data contribution and data access. The Linkage Honest Broker (LHB), an independent neutral party (the Regenstrief Institute), ensures data linkages are robust and secure by adding an extra layer of separation between protected health information and clinical data. The LHB's PPRL methods (including algorithms, processes, and governance) match patient records using “deidentified tokens,” which are hashed combinations of identifier fields that define a match across data repositories without using patients' clear‐text identifiers. Results These methods enable three linkage functions: Deduplication, Linking Multiple Datasets, and Cohort Discovery. To date, two external repositories have been cross‐linked. As of March 1, 2023, 43 sites have signed the LHB Agreement; 35 sites have sent tokens generated for 9 528 998 patients. In this initial cohort, the LHB identified 135 037 matches and 68 596 duplicates. Conclusion This large‐scale linkage study using deidentified datasets of varying characteristics established secure methods for protecting the privacy of N3C patient data when linked for research purposes. This technology has potential for use with registries for other diseases and conditions

A Methodological Framework for the Comparative Evaluation of Multiple Imputation Methods: Multiple Imputation of Race, Ethnicity and Body Mass Index in the U.S. National COVID Cohort Collaborative

While electronic health records are a rich data source for biomedical research, these systems are not implemented uniformly across healthcare settings and significant data may be missing due to healthcare fragmentation and lack of interoperability between siloed electronic health records. Considering that the deletion of cases with missing data may introduce severe bias in the subsequent analysis, several authors prefer applying a multiple imputation strategy to recover the missing information. Unfortunately, although several literature works have documented promising results by using any of the different multiple imputation algorithms that are now freely available for research, there is no consensus on which MI algorithm works best. Beside the choice of the MI strategy, the choice of the imputation algorithm and its application settings are also both crucial and challenging. In this paper, inspired by the seminal works of Rubin and van Buuren, we propose a methodological framework that may be applied to evaluate and compare several multiple imputation techniques, with the aim to choose the most valid for computing inferences in a clinical research work. Our framework has been applied to validate, and extend on a larger cohort, the results we presented in a previous literature study, where we evaluated the influence of crucial patients' descriptors and COVID-19 severity in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus whose data is provided by the National COVID Cohort Collaborative Enclave