Abstract
The use of electronic health records (EHRs) holds the potential to enhance clinical trial activities. However, the identification of eligible patients within EHRs presents considerable challenges. In this study, we developed a pipeline for phenotyping eligibility criteria, enabling the identification of patients from EHRs with clinical characteristics that match those criteria. We utilized clinical trial eligibility criteria from ClinicalTrials.gov and patient EHRs from the Mount Sinai Data Warehouse. The criteria and EHR data were normalized using national standard terminologies and in-house databases, facilitating computability and queryability. The pipeline employed rule-based pattern recognition and manual annotation. The quality of normalization was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa, with the precision, recall, and F1 score evaluated for patient matching. Our pipeline normalized 367 out of 640 unique eligibility criteria attributes, covering various medical conditions including non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, multiple myeloma, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, and sickle cell anemia. 174 were encoded with standard terminologies and 193 were normalized using the in-house reference tables. The agreement between automated and manual normalization was high (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.82), and patient matching demonstrated a 0.94 F1 score. We developed a clinical phenotyping pipeline that improved the integration of eligibility criteria with EHR data. This system was successfully tested on EHRs from multiple institutions, indicating its wide applicability. The pipeline has the potential to greatly improve EHR use in clinical trial processes, leading to better patient selection and enhanced clinical research outcomes.
Question Can the clinical trial eligibility criteria attributes and patient clinical characteristics in EHRs be structuralized and normalized to improve their computability and queryability?
Findings Our clinical phenotyping pipeline effectively mapped the eligibility criteria and patient EHR data to enable automated matching.
Meaning Our study could significantly improve the identification of eligible patient cohorts for clinical trials, thus making the process of patient recruitment more efficient.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study is covered under IRB-17-01245 approved by the Program for the Protection of Human Subjects at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.