Content Coverage Evaluation of the OMOP Vocabulary on the Transplant Domain Focusing on Concepts Relevant for Kidney Transplant Outcomes AnalysisFunding This work was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01-DK114893 and U01-DK116066) and National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (R01-MD14161). This work was also supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (1U01TR002062–01).
Background Improving outcomes of transplant recipients within and across transplant centers is important with the increasing number of organ transplantations being performed. The current practice is to analyze the outcomes based on patient level data submitted to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). Augmenting the UNOS data with other sources such as the electronic health record will enrich the outcomes analysis, for which a common data model (CDM) can be a helpful tool for transforming heterogeneous source data into a uniform format.
Objectives In this study, we evaluated the feasibility of representing concepts from the UNOS transplant registry forms with the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) CDM vocabulary to understand the content coverage of OMOP vocabulary on transplant-specific concepts.
Methods Two annotators manually mapped a total of 3,571 unique concepts extracted from the UNOS registry forms to concepts in the OMOP vocabulary. Concept mappings were evaluated by (1) examining the agreement among the initial two annotators and (2) investigating the number of UNOS concepts not mapped to a concept in the OMOP vocabulary and then classifying them. A subset of mappings was validated by clinicians.
Results There was a substantial agreement between annotators with a kappa score of 0.71. We found that 55.5% of UNOS concepts could not be represented with OMOP standard concepts. The majority of unmapped UNOS concepts were categorized into transplant, measurement, condition, and procedure concepts.
Conclusion We identified categories of unmapped concepts and found that some transplant-specific concepts do not exist in the OMOP vocabulary. We suggest that adding these missing concepts to OMOP would facilitate further research in the transplant domain.
Protection of Human and Animal Subjects
Neither human nor animal subjects were included in the project.
Received: 14 May 2020
Accepted: 28 July 2020
07 October 2020 (online)
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York
- 1 Abecassis M, Bartlett ST, Collins AJ. et al. Kidney transplantation as primary therapy for end-stage renal disease: a National Kidney Foundation/Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (NKF/KDOQITM) conference. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 3 (02) 471-480
- 2 Tonelli M, Wiebe N, Knoll G. et al. Systematic review: kidney transplantation compared with dialysis in clinically relevant outcomes. Am J Transplant 2011; 11 (10) 2093-2109
- 3 United Network for Organ Sharing. US organ transplants, deceased donors set record in 2016. Available at: https://www.unos.org/us-organ-transplants-set-record-in-2016/ . Published 2017. Accessed June 21, 2020
- 4 Howard RJ, Cornell DL, Schold JD. CMS oversight, OPOs and transplant centers and the law of unintended consequences. Clin Transplant 2009; 23 (06) 778-783
- 5 Srinivas TR, Taber DJ, Su Z. et al. Big data, predictive analytics and quality improvement in kidney transplantation- a proof of concept. Am J Transplant 2017; 17 (03) 671-681
- 6 Massie AB, Kucirka LM, Segev DL. Big data in organ transplantation: registries and administrative claims. Am J Transplant 2014; 14 (08) 1723-1730
- 7 Cho S, Mohan S, Husain SA, Natarajan K. Expanding transplant outcomes research opportunities through the use of a common data model. Am J Transplant 2018; 18 (06) 1321-1327
- 8 Rijnbeek PR. Converting to a common data model: what is lost in translation?: commentary on “fidelity assessment of a clinical practice research datalink conversion to the OMOP common data model”. Drug Saf 2014; 37 (11) 893-896
- 9 Ogunyemi OI, Meeker D, Kim H-E, Ashish N, Farzaneh S, Boxwala A. Identifying appropriate reference data models for comparative effectiveness research (CER) studies based on data from clinical information systems. Med Care 2013; 51 (08) (Suppl. 03) S45-S52
- 10 Steindel SJ. International classification of diseases, 10th edition, clinical modification and procedure coding system: descriptive overview of the next generation HIPAA code sets. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17 (03) 274-282
- 11 Voss EA, Makadia R, Matcho A. et al. Feasibility and utility of applications of the common data model to multiple, disparate observational health databases. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22 (03) 553-564
- 12 Klann JG, Joss MAH, Embree K, Murphy SN. Data model harmonization for the All Of Us Research Program: transforming i2b2 data into the OMOP common data model. PLoS One 2019; 14 (02) e0212463
- 13 Kahn MG, Batson D, Schilling LM. Data model considerations for clinical effectiveness researchers. Med Care 2012; 50 (Suppl): S60-S67
- 14 Garza M, Del Fiol G, Tenenbaum J, Walden A, Zozus MN. Evaluating common data models for use with a longitudinal community registry. J Biomed Inform 2016; 64: 333-341
- 15 Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics. Software tools. Available at: https://www.ohdsi.org/software-tools/ . Accessed June 20, 2020
- 16 Maier C, Christoph J, Schmidt D. et al. Experiences of transforming a complex nephrologic care and research database into i2b2 using the IDRT tools. J Healthc Eng 2019; 2019: 5640685
- 17 Zhou X, Murugesan S, Bhullar H. et al. An evaluation of the THIN database in the OMOP Common Data Model for active drug safety surveillance. Drug Saf 2013; 36 (02) 119-134
- 18 Matcho A, Ryan P, Fife D, Reich C. Fidelity assessment of a clinical practice research datalink conversion to the OMOP common data model. Drug Saf 2014; 37 (11) 945-959
- 19 Dale L-A, Mohan S, Natarajan K. Advancing outcomes analysis within and across transplant centers using the OMOP CDM. OHDSI Symposium. Available at: https://www.ohdsi.org/web/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=resources:unos_mapping.pdf . Published 2016. Accessed June 20, 2020
- 20 Ryan P, Duke J, Hripcsak G. Open-source big data analytics in healthcare. Available at: https://www.ohdsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/OHDSI-Tutorial-PreFinal-mod.pdf . Accessed June 21, 2020
- 21 Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics. USAGI. Available at: http://www.ohdsi.org/web/wiki/doku.php?id=documentation:software:usagi . Published 2017. Accessed June 21, 2020
- 22 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). Data collection forms. Available at: https://transplantpro.org/technology/data-collection-forms/ . Accessed June 21, 2020
- 23 Reich C, Ostropolets A. Chapter 5: Standardized vocabularies. In: The Book of OHDSI. 2019. Accessed August 12, 2020 at: https://ohdsi.github.io/TheBookOfOhdsi/StandardizedVocabularies.html#fn25
- 24 Maier C, Lang L, Storf H. et al. Towards Implementation of OMOP in a German University Hospital Consortium. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (01) 54-61
- 25 Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics. ATHENA. http://athena.ohdsi.org . Accessed June 20, 2020.
- 26 McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012; 22 (03) 276-282
- 27 US National Library of Medicine. NIH common data elements (CDE) repository. Available at: https://cde.nlm.nih.gov/home . Accessed June 21, 2020
- 28 Common Data Element Repository (CDER) Library. . Available at: https://repository.usaspending.gov/cder_library/ . Accessed June 21, 2020
- 29 Cho S, Sin M, Tsapepas D. et al. UNOS-to-OMOP GitHub repository. Available at: https://github.com/sylviacho/UNOS-to-OMOP/wiki . Published 2020. Accessed July 12, 2020
- 30 Cimino JJ. Desiderata for controlled medical vocabularies in the twenty-first century. Methods Inf Med 1998; 37 (4–5): 394-403
- 31 Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics. Common data model: Measurement table. OHDSI; Published 2017. Accessed June 21, 2020 at: http://www.ohdsi.org/web/wiki/doku.php?id=documentation:cdm:measurement
- 32 Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics. Common data model: Procedure_occurrence table. OHDSI; Published 2017. Accessed June 21, 2020 at: http://www.ohdsi.org/web/wiki/doku.php?id=documentation:cdm:procedure_occurrence
- 33 Lee D, Cornet R, Lau F, de Keizer N. A survey of SNOMED CT implementations. J Biomed Inform 2013; 46 (01) 87-96
- 34 Friedman CPA. A “fundamental theorem” of biomedical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16 (02) 169-170
- 35 Tsapepas D, King KL, Husain SA, Mohan S. Evaluation of kidney allocation critical data validity in the OPTN registry using dialysis dates. Am J Transplant 2020; 20 (01) 318-319
- 36 Marsolo K. EHR-linked registries for studies of populations. In: Hutton JJ. , ed. Pediatric Biomedical Informatics: Computer Applications in Pediatric Research. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012: 133-148
- 37 Seneviratne MG, Seto T, Blayney DW, Brooks JD, Hernandez-Boussard T. Architecture and implementation of a clinical research data warehouse for prostate cancer. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2018; 6 (01) 13