The de novo FAIRification process of a registry for vascular anomalies

Contains fulltext : 237199.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

Natural language processing algorithms for mapping clinical text fragments onto ontology concepts: a systematic review and recommendations for future studies

Background: Free-text descriptions in electronic health records (EHRs) can be of interest for clinical research and care optimization. However, free text cannot be readily interpreted by a computer and, therefore, has limited value. Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithms can make free text machine-interpretable by attaching ontology concepts to it. However, implementations of NLP algorithms are not evaluated consistently. Therefore, the objective of this study was to review the current methods used for developing and evaluating NLP algorithms that map clinical text fragments onto ontology concepts. To standardize the evaluation of algorithms and reduce heterogeneity between studies, we propose a list of recommendations. Methods: Two reviewers examined publications indexed by Scopus, IEEE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the ACM Digital Library, and the ACL Anthology. Publications reporting on NLP for mapping clinical text from EHRs to ontology concepts were included. Year, country, setting, objective, evaluation and validation methods, NLP algorithms, terminology systems, dataset size and language, performance measures, reference standard, generalizability, operational use, and source code availability were extracted. The studies’ objectives were categorized by way of induction. These results were used to define recommendations. Results: Two thousand three hundred fifty five unique studies were identified. Two hundred fifty six studies reported on the development of NLP algorithms for mapping free text to ontology concepts. Seventy-seven described development and evaluation. Twenty-two studies did not perform a validation on unseen data and 68 studies did not perform external validation. Of 23 studies that claimed that their algorithm was generalizable, 5 tested this by external validation. A list of sixteen recommendations regarding the usage of NLP systems and algorithms, usage of data, evaluation and validation, presentation of results, and generalizability of results was developed. Conclusion: We found many heterogeneous approaches to the reporting on the development and evaluation of NLP algorithms that map clinical text to ontology concepts. Over one-fourth of the identified publications did not perform an evaluation. In addition, over one-fourth of the included studies did not perform a validation, and 88% did not perform external validation. We believe that our recommendations, alongside an existing reporting standard, will increase the reproducibility and reusability of future studies and NLP algorithms in medicine

The de novo FAIRification process of a registry for vascular anomalies

Background: Patient data registries that are FAIR—Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable for humans and computers—facilitate research across multiple resources. This is particularly relevant to rare diseases, where data often are scarce and scattered. Specific research questions can be asked across FAIR rare disease registries and other FAIR resources without physically combining the data. Further, FAIR implies well-defined, transparent access conditions, which supports making sensitive data as open as possible and as closed as necessary. Results: We successfully developed and implemented a process of making a rare disease registry for vascular anomalies FAIR from its conception—de novo. Here, we describe the five phases of this process in detail: (i) pre-FAIRification, (ii) facilitating FAIRification, (iii) data collection, (iv) generating FAIR data in real-time, and (v) using FAIR data. This includes the creation of an electronic case report form and a semantic data model of the elements to be collected (in this case: the “Set of Common Data Elements for Rare Disease Registration” released by the European Commission), and the technical implementation of automatic, real-time data FAIRification in an Electronic Data Capture system. Further, we describe how we contribute to the four facets of FAIR, and how our FAIRification process can be reused by other registries. Conclusions: In conclusion, a detailed de novo FAIRification process of a registry for vascular anomalies is described. To a large extent, the process may be reused by other rare disease registries, and we envision this work to be a substantial contribution to an ecosystem of FAIR rare disease resources

Building expertise on FAIR through evolving Bring Your Own Data (BYOD) workshops: describing the data, software, and management- focused approaches and their evolution

Since 2014, “Bring Your Own Data” workshops (BYODs) have been organised to inform people about the process and benefits of making resources Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR, and the FAIRification process). The BYOD workshops’ content and format differ depending on their goal, context, and the background and needs of participants. Data-focused BYODs educate domain experts on how to make their data FAIR to find new answers to research questions. Management-focused BYODs promote the benefits of making data FAIR and instruct project managers and policy-makers on the characteristics of FAIRification projects. Software-focused BYODs gather software developers and experts on FAIR to implement or improve software resources that are used to support FAIRification. Overall, these BYODs intend to foster collaboration between different types of stakeholders involved in data management, curation, and reuse (e.g. domain experts, trainers, developers, data owners, data analysts, FAIR experts). The BYODs also serve as an opportunity to learn what kind of support for FAIRification is needed from different communities and to develop teaching materials based on practical examples and experience. In this paper, we detail the three different structures of the BYODs and describe examples of early BYODs related to plant breeding data, and rare disease registries and biobanks, which have shaped the structure of the workshops. We discuss the latest insights into making BYODs more productive by leveraging our almost ten years of training experience in these workshops, including successes and encountered challenges. Finally, we examine how the participants’ feedback has motivated the research on FAIR, including the development of workflows and software

Fair principles: Interpretations and implementation considerations

The FAIR principles have been widely cited, endorsed and adopted by a broad range of stakeholders since their publication in 2016. By intention, the 15 FAIR guiding principles do not dictate specific technological implementations, but provide guidance for improving Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability of digital resources. This has likely contributed to the broad adoption of the FAIR principles, because individual stakeholder communities can implement their own FAIR solutions. However, it has also resulted in inconsistent interpretations that carry the risk of leading to incompatible implementations. Thus, while the FAIR principles are formulated on a high level and may be interpreted and implemented in different ways, for true interoperability we need to support convergence in implementation choices that are widely accessible and (re)-usable. We introduce the concept of FAIR implementation considerations to assist accelerated global participation and convergence towards accessible, robust, widespread and consistent FAIR implementations. Any self-identified stakeholder community may either choose to reuse solutions from existing implementations, or when they spot a gap, accept the challenge to create the needed solution, which, ideally, can be used again by other communities in the future. Here, we provide interpretations and implementation considerations (choices and challenges) for each FAIR principle

FAIR Principles: Interpretations and Implementation Considerations

The FAIR principles have been widely cited, endorsed and adopted by a broad range of stakeholders since their publication in 2016. By intention, the 15 FAIR guiding principles do not dictate specific technological implementations, but provide guidance for improving Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability of digital resources. This has likely contributed to the broad adoption of the FAIR principles, because individual stakeholder communities can implement their own FAIR solutions. However, it has also resulted in inconsistent interpretations that carry the risk of leading to incompatible implementations. Thus, while the FAIR principles are formulated on a high level and may be interpreted and implemented in different ways, for true interoperability we need to support convergence in implementation choices that are widely accessible and (re)-usable. We introduce the concept of FAIR implementation considerations to assist accelerated global participation and convergence towards accessible, robust, widespread and consistent FAIR implementations. Any self-identified stakeholder community may either choose to reuse solutions from existing implementations, or when they spot a gap, accept the challenge to create the needed solution, which, ideally, can be used again by other communities in the future. Here, we provide interpretations and implementation considerations (choices and challenges) for each FAIR principle

FAIR Principles: Interpretations and implementation considerations

The FAIR principles have been widely cited, endorsed and adopted by a broad range of stakeholders since their publication in 2016. By intention, the 15 FAIR guiding principles do not dictate specific technological implementations, but provide guidance for improving Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability of digital resources. This has likely contributed to the broad adoption of the FAIR principles, because individual stakeholder communities can implement their own FAIR solutions. However, it has also resulted in inconsistent interpretations that carry the risk of leading to incompatible implementations. Thus, while the FAIR principles are formulated on a high level and may be interpreted and implemented in different ways, for true interoperability we need to support convergence in implementation choices that are widely accessible and (re)-usable. We introduce the concept of FAIR implementation considerations to assist accelerated global participation and convergence towards accessible, robust, widespread and consistent FAIR implementations. Any self-identified stakeholder community may either choose to reuse solutions from existing implementations, or when they spot a gap, accept the challenge to create the needed solution, which, ideally, can be used again by other communities in the future. Here, we provide interpretations and implementation considerations (choices and challenges) for each FAIR principle