Clinical Data Integration Model

Summary

Introduction: This article is part of the Focus Theme of Methods of Information in Medicine on “Managing Interoperability and Complexity in Health Systems”.

Background: Primary care data is the single richest source of routine health care data. However its use, both in research and clinical work, often requires data from multiple clinical sites, clinical trials databases and registries. Data integration and interoperability are therefore of utmost importance.

Objectives: TRANSFoRm’s general approach relies on a unified interoperability framework, described in a previous paper. We developed a core ontology for an interoperability framework based on data mediation. This article presents how such an ontology, the Clinical Data Integration Model (CDIM), can be designed to support, in conjunction with appropriate terminologies, biomedical data federation within TRANSFoRm, an EU FP7 project that aims to develop the digital infrastructure for a learning healthcare system in European Primary Care.

Methods: TRANSFoRm utilizes a unified structural / terminological interoperability frame work, based on the local-as-view mediation paradigm. Such an approach mandates the global information model to describe the domain of interest independently of the data sources to be explored. Following a requirement analysis process, no ontology focusing on primary care research was identified and, thus we designed a realist ontology based on Basic Formal Ontology to support our framework in collaboration with various terminologies used in primary care.

Results: The resulting ontology has 549 classes and 82 object properties and is used to support data integration for TRANSFoRm’s use cases. Concepts identified by researchers were successfully expressed in queries using CDIM and pertinent terminologies. As an example, we illustrate how, in TRANSFoRm, the Query Formulation Workbench can capture eligibility criteria in a computable representation, which is based on CDIM.

Conclusion: A unified mediation approach to semantic interoperability provides a flexible and extensible framework for all types of interaction between health record systems and research systems. CDIM, as core ontology of such an approach, enables simplicity and consistency of design across the heterogeneous software landscape and can support the specific needs of EHR-driven phenotyping research using primary care data.

Keywords

Translational medical research - interoperability - phenotyping - ontology - primary care

• References

• 1 Thiru K, Hassey A, Sullivan F. Systematic review of scope and quality of electronic patient record data in primary care. BMJ 2003; 326: 1070.
• 2 Sujansky W. Heterogeneous Database Integration in Biomedicine. J Biomed Inform 2001; 34: 285-98.
• 3 Beale T, Heard S, Kalra D. et al. The openEHR Reference Model - EHR Information Model - Release 1.0.2 [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2012 Jun 29].Available from. http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2.
• 4 Murphy SN, Mendis M, Hackett K. et al. Architecture of the Open-source Clinical Research Chart from Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007: 548-552.
• 5 Schadow G, Mead CN, Walker DM. The HL7 reference information model under scrutiny. Stud Health Technol Inform 2006 124. 151-156.
• 6 CDASH - Basic Recommended Data Collection Fields for Medical Research [Internet] [cited 2012 Dec 8]. Available from. http://www.cdisc.org/cdash.
• 7 López DM, Blobel B. Architectural approaches for HL7-based health information systems implementation. Methods Inf Med 2010; 49: 196-204.
• 8 Clinical Information Modelling Initiative... [Internet]. [cited 2012 Dec 8]. Available from. http://www.openehr.org/326-OE.html?branch= 1&language=1.
• 9 Ohmann C, Kuchinke W. Future developments of medical informatics from the viewpoint of networked clinical research. Interoperability and integration. Methods Inf Med 2009; 48: 45-54.
• 10 Delaney B. TRANSFoRm: Translational Medicine and Patient Safety in Europe. In. Grossman C, Powers B, McGinnis JM. editors Digital Infrastructure for the Learning Health System: The Foundation for Continuous Improvement in Health and Health Care: Workshop Series Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011: 198-202.
• 11 TRANSFoRm Project [Internet]. [cited 2012 Apr 11];Available from. http://www.transformproject.eu.
• 12 Wiederhold G. Mediators in the architecture of future information systems. Comput J 1992; 25: 38-49.
• 13 Gupta A, Ludascher B, Martone ME. BIRN-M: a semantic mediator for solving real-world neuroscience problems. In. Halevy AY, Ives ZG, Doan A. editors Proc ACM SIGMOD Int Conf Manag Data. New York, NY: ACM Press; 2003: 678-678.
• 14 Stanford J, Mikula R. A model for online collaborative cancer research: report of the NCI caBIG project. Int J Healthc Technol Manag 2008; 9: 231-246.
• 15 Martin L, Anguita A, Graf N. et al. ACGT: advancing clinico-genomic trials on cancer - four years of experience. Stud Health Technol Inform 2011; 169: 734-738.
• 16 Murphy SN, Weber G, Mendis M. et al. Serving the Enterprise and Beyond with Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2). J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17: 124-130.
• 17 Delaney BC, Peterson KA, Speedie S. et al. Envisioning a Learning Health Care System: The Electronic Primary Care Research Network, A Case Study. Ann Fam Med 2012; 10: 54-59.
• 18 Peterson KA, Fontaine P, Speedie S. The Electronic Primary Care Research Network (ePCRN): A New Era in Practice-based Research. J Am Board Fam Med 2006; 19: 93-97.
• 19 Weber GM, Murphy SN, McMurry AJ. et al. The Shared Health Research Information Network (SHRINE): A Prototype Federated Query Tool for Clinical Data Repositories. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16: 624-630.
• 20 Ethier J-F. Dameron O, Curcin V. et al. A unified structural/terminological interoperability framework based on LexEVS: application to TRANSFoRm. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; Published Online First: April 9. 2013
• 21 Qamar R, Kola JS, Rector AL. Unambiguous data modeling to ensure higher accuracy term binding to clinical terminologies. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007: 608-613.
• 22 Rector AL. Clinical terminology: why is it so hard?. Methods Inf Med 1999; 38: 239-252.
• 23 WHO|International Classification of Primary Care, Second edition (ICPC-2) [Internet]. WHO. [cited 2013 Jun 13]. Available from. http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/adaptations/icpc2/en/.
• 24 Rector AL. Thesauri and formal classifications: terminologies for people and machines. Methods Inf Med 1998; 37: 501-509.
• 25 Clinical Practice Research Datalink - CPRD [Internet]. [cited 2012 Jul 28]. Available from. http://www.cprd.com/intro.asp.
• 26 NIVEL|LINH [Internet]. [cited 2012 Jul 28]. Available from. http://www.nivel.nl/en/netherlands- information-network-general-practice-linh.
• 27 Chute CG, Elkin PL, Sherertz DD. et al. Desiderata for a clinical terminology server. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999: 42-46.
• 28 Cimino JJ. Terminology tools: state of the art and practical lessons. Methods Inf Med 2001; 40: 298-306.
• 29 WHO|International Classification of Diseases (ICD) [Internet]. WHO. [cited 2013 Jun 13]. Available from. http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/.
• 30 Prins H, Hasman A. Appropriateness of ICD-coded diagnostic inpatient hospital discharge data for medical practice assessment. A systematic review. Methods Inf Med 2013; 52: 3-17.
• 31 Köpcke F, Trinczek B, Majeed RW. et al. Evaluation of data completeness in the electronic health record for the purpose of patient recruitment into clinical trials: a retrospective analysis of element presence. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013; 13: 37.
• 32 De Lusignan S, Pearce C, Shaw NT. et al. What are the barriers to conducting international research using routinely collected primary care data?. Stud Health Technol Inform 2011; 165: 135-140.
• 33 Arp R, Smith B. Function, role, and disposition in basic formal ontology. Nat Preceedings. 2008: 1-4.
• 34 Soler JK, Okkes I, Oskam S. et al. Revisiting the concept of “chronic disease” from the perspective of the episode of care model. Does the ratio of incidence to prevalence rate help us to define a problem as chronic?. Inform Prim Care 2012; 20: 13-23.
• 35 Masys DR, Jarvik GP, Abernethy NF. et al. Technical desiderata for the integration of genomic data into Electronic Health Records. J Biomed Inform 2012; 45: 419-422.
• 36 LexEVS 6.0 Architecture [Internet]. [cited 2013 May 30]. Available from. https://cabig-kc. nci.nih.gov/Vocab/KC/index.php/LexEVS_6.0_ Architecture.
• 37 Health Level Seven International - Homepage [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jun 13]. Available from. http://www.hl7.org/.
• 38 Grenon pierre. Bfo in a nutshell: A bi-categorical axiomatization of bfo and comparison with dolce [Internet]. University of Leipzig; 2003 [cited 2013 Jun 13]. Available from. www.ifomis.org/Research/IFOMISReports/IFOMIS Report 06_2003.pdf.
• 39 Gangemi A, Guarino N, Masolo C. et al. Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE [Internet]. In. Gómez-Pérez A, Benjamins VR. editors Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management: Ontologies and the Semantic Web. Springer Berlin Heidelberg: 2002. [cited 2013 Dec 15] 166-181. Available from. http://link.springer.com/chapter/ 10.1007/3-540-45810-7_18.
• 40 Grenon P, Smith B. SNAP and SPAN: Towards Dynamic Spatial Ontology. Spat Cogn Comput 2004; 4: 69-104.
• 41 Smith B, Ashburner M, Rosse C. et al. The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration. Nat Biotechnol 2007; 25: 1251-1255.
• 42 Smith B, Brochhausen M. Putting biomedical ontologies to work. Methods Inf Med 2010; 49: 135-140.
• 43 Scheuermann RH, Ceusters W, Smith B. Toward an Ontological Treatment of Disease and Diagnosis. AMIA Summit Transl Bioinforma. 2009: 116-120.
• 44 Grenon P, Smith B, Goldberg L. Biodynamic ontology: applying BFO in the biomedical domain. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004; 102: 20-38.
• 45 Goldfain A, Smith B, Arabandi S. et al. Vital Sign Ontology. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Bio-Ontologies. Vienna: 2011: 71-74.
• 46 The Information Artifact Ontology (IAO) is an ontology of information entities based on the BFO [Internet]. [cited 2012 Dec 9]. Available from. http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/.
• 47 Brinkman RR, Courtot M, Derom D. et al. Modeling biomedical experimental processes with OBI. J Biomed Semant 2010; 1: S7.
• 48 Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA. et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet 2000; 25: 25-29.
• 49 Shearer R, Motik B, Horrocks I, Hermi T. A highly-efficient OWL reasoner. In. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions (OWLED 2008). 2008: 26-27.
• 50 Pearson ER, Donnelly LA, Kimber C. et al. Variation in TCF7L2 influences therapeutic response to sulfonylureas: a GoDARTs study. Diabetes 2007; 56: 2178-2182.
• 51 Leysen P, Bastiaens H, Van Royen P. TRANSFoRm: Development of Use Cases [Internet]. [cited 2013 Feb 28]. Available from. http://transformproject.eu/Deliverable_List_files/D1.1%20Detailed%20Use%20Cases_V2.1-2.pdf.
• 52 De Lusignan S, Khunti K, Belsey J. et al. A method of identifying and correcting miscoding, misclassification and misdiagnosis in diabetes: a pilot and validation study of routinely collected data. Diabet Med J Br Diabet Assoc 2010; 27: 203-209.
• 53 Manuel DG, Rosella LC, Stukel TA. Importance of accurately identifying disease in studies using electronic health records. BMJ 2010; 341: c4226.
• 54 Newton KM, Peissig PL, Kho AN. et al. Validation of electronic medical record-based phenotyping algorithms: results and lessons learned from the eMERGE network. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20: e147-e154.
• 55 Nelson SJ, Zeng K, Kilbourne J. et al. Normalized names for clinical drugs: RxNorm at 6 years. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA 2011; 18: 441-448.
• 56 Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC®) — LOINC [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jun 13]. Available from. http://loinc.org/.
• 57 unit-ontology - Ontology of Units of Measurement [Internet]. [cited 2013 Jun 13]. Available from. http://code.google.com/p/unit-ontology/.
• 58 García Godoy MJ, López-Camacho E, Navas-Delgado I. et al. Sharing and executing linked data queries in a collaborative environment. Bioinforma Oxf Engl. 2013
• 59 Cimino JJ. High-quality, standard, controlled healthcare terminologies come of age. Methods Inf Med 2011; 50: 101-104.
• 60 epSOS: About epSOS [Internet]. [cited 2012 Apr 11]. Available from. http://www.epsos.eu/home/about-epsos.html.
• 61 Kuchinke W, Wiegelmann S, Verplancke P. et al. Extended Cooperation in Clinical Studies through Exchange of CDISC Metadota between Different Study Software Solutions. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45: 441.
• 62 Bodenreider O. The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology. Nucleic Acids Res 2004; 32: D267-270.
• 63 Curcin V, Danger R, Kuchinke W. et al. Provenance Model for Randomized Controlled Trials. In. Liu Q, Bai Q, Giugni S, Williamson D, Taylor J. editors Data Provenance and Data Management in eScience. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2013: 3-33.