BACKGROUND: Computational phenotyping from electronic health records (EHRs) is essential for clinical research, decision support, and quality/population health assessment, but the proliferation of algorithms for the same conditions makes it difficult to identify which algorithm is most appropriate for reuse. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework for assessing phenotyping algorithm fitness for purpose and reuse. FITNESS FOR PURPOSE: Phenotyping algorithms are fit for purpose when they identify the intended population with performance characteristics appropriate for the intended application. FITNESS FOR REUSE: Phenotyping algorithms are fit for reuse when the algorithm is implementable and generalizable-that is, it identifies the same intended population with similar performance characteristics when applied to a new setting. CONCLUSIONS: The PhenoFit framework provides a structured approach to evaluate and adapt phenotyping algorithms for new contexts increasing efficiency and consistency of identifying patient populations from EHRs.

OBJECTIVES: In 2023, AMIA's Inclusive Language and Context Style Guidelines (the "Guidelines") were approved by the Board of Directors and made a publicly available resource. This work began in 2021 through AMIA's DEI Task Force and subsequent DEI Committee; many members provided input, feedback, and time to create the Guidelines. In this paper, the authors provide a transparent account of the origin, development, contents, and dissemination of the Guidelines and share plans for their future development and use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our approach to drafting, refining, and distributing the Guidelines included consulting existing language guides, AMIA member reviews, external expert reviews, webinars, and workshops. Through an iterative approach to drafting and refining the Guidelines, the authors consulted relevant language guidelines and many experts throughout and beyond the AMIA community. RESULTS: The Inclusive Language Context Guidelines were formally approved by the AMIA Board of Directors on February 15, 2023. The Guidelines included four principles to be considered in scientific communications: Plurality, Precision, Transparency, and Destigmatization. DISCUSSION: A moment of vulnerability where an AMIA member raised concerns about the use of harmful language during a presentation resulted in the creation of a principled approach to support inclusive language within biomedical and health informatics communications. We envision that the Guidelines will support health equity by challenging dominant public narratives around health, fostering stronger interdisciplinary collaboration and critical thinking about the impact of language, and creating a more welcoming environment for the broader AMIA community. This work could not have been completed without the support of many AMIA members and other researchers in biomedical and health informatics. The Guidelines are a living document that will continue to be updated with input and feedback from the AMIA community into the future.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze a publicly available sample of rule-based phenotype definitions to characterize and evaluate the variability of logical constructs used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of 33 preexisting phenotype definitions used in research that are represented using Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources and Clinical Quality Language (CQL) was analyzed using automated analysis of the computable representation of the CQL libraries. RESULTS: Most of the phenotype definitions include narrative descriptions and flowcharts, while few provide pseudocode or executable artifacts. Most use 4 or fewer medical terminologies. The number of codes used ranges from 5 to 6865, and value sets from 1 to 19. We found that the most common expressions used were literal, data, and logical expressions. Aggregate and arithmetic expressions are the least common. Expression depth ranges from 4 to 27. DISCUSSION: Despite the range of conditions, we found that all of the phenotype definitions consisted of logical criteria, representing both clinical and operational logic, and tabular data, consisting of codes from standard terminologies and keywords for natural language processing. The total number and variety of expressions are low, which may be to simplify implementation, or authors may limit complexity due to data availability constraints. CONCLUSIONS: The phenotype definitions analyzed show significant variation in specific logical, arithmetic, and other operators but are all composed of the same high-level components, namely tabular data and logical expressions. A standard representation for phenotype definitions should support these formats and be modular to support localization and shared logic.

OBJECTIVE: In response to COVID-19, the informatics community united to aggregate as much clinical data as possible to characterize this new disease and reduce its impact through collaborative analytics. The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) is now the largest publicly available HIPAA limited dataset in US history with over 6.4 million patients and is a testament to a partnership of over 100 organizations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a pipeline for ingesting, harmonizing, and centralizing data from 56 contributing data partners using 4 federated Common Data Models. N3C data quality (DQ) review involves both automated and manual procedures. In the process, several DQ heuristics were discovered in our centralized context, both within the pipeline and during downstream project-based analysis. Feedback to the sites led to many local and centralized DQ improvements. RESULTS: Beyond well-recognized DQ findings, we discovered 15 heuristics relating to source Common Data Model conformance, demographics, COVID tests, conditions, encounters, measurements, observations, coding completeness, and fitness for use. Of 56 sites, 37 sites (66%) demonstrated issues through these heuristics. These 37 sites demonstrated improvement after receiving feedback. DISCUSSION: We encountered site-to-site differences in DQ which would have been challenging to discover using federated checks alone. We have demonstrated that centralized DQ benchmarking reveals unique opportunities for DQ improvement that will support improved research analytics locally and in aggregate. CONCLUSION: By combining rapid, continual assessment of DQ with a large volume of multisite data, it is possible to support more nuanced scientific questions with the scale and rigor that they require.

Defining patient-to-patient similarity is essential for the development of precision medicine in clinical care and research. Conceptually, the identification of similar patient cohorts appears straightforward; however, universally accepted definitions remain elusive. Simultaneously, an explosion of vendors and published algorithms have emerged and all provide varied levels of functionality in identifying patient similarity categories. To provide clarity and a common framework for patient similarity, a workshop at the American Medical Informatics Association 2019 Annual Meeting was convened. This workshop included invited discussants from academics, the biotechnology industry, the FDA, and private practice oncology groups. Drawing from a broad range of backgrounds, workshop participants were able to coalesce around 4 major patient similarity classes: (1) feature, (2) outcome, (3) exposure, and (4) mixed-class. This perspective expands into these 4 subtypes more critically and offers the medical informatics community a means of communicating their work on this important topic.

The American Medical Informatics Association convened the 2014 Health Policy Invitational Meeting to develop recommendations for updates to current policies and to establish an informatics research agenda for personalizing medicine. In particular, the meeting focused on discussing informatics challenges related to personalizing care through the integration of genomic or other high-volume biomolecular data with data from clinical systems to make health care more efficient and effective. This report summarizes the findings (n = 6) and recommendations (n = 15) from the policy meeting, which were clustered into 3 broad areas: (1) policies governing data access for research and personalization of care; (2) policy and research needs for evolving data interpretation and knowledge representation; and (3) policy and research needs to ensure data integrity and preservation. The meeting outcome underscored the need to address a number of important policy and technical considerations in order to realize the potential of personalized or precision medicine in actual clinical contexts.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of, characterize the usage of, and propose potential research applications for International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) tobacco codes in clinical populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using data on cancer cases and cancer-free controls from Vanderbilt's biorepository, BioVU, we evaluated the utility of ICD-9 tobacco use codes to identify ever-smokers in general and high smoking prevalence (lung cancer) clinic populations. We assessed potential biases in documentation, and performed temporal analysis relating transitions between smoking codes to smoking cessation attempts. We also examined the suitability of these codes for use in genetic association analyses. RESULTS: ICD-9 tobacco use codes can identify smokers in a general clinic population (specificity of 1, sensitivity of 0.32), and there is little evidence of documentation bias. Frequency of code transitions between 'current' and 'former' tobacco use was significantly correlated with initial success at smoking cessation (p<0.0001). Finally, code-based smoking status assignment is a comparable covariate to text-based smoking status for genetic association studies. DISCUSSION: Our results support the use of ICD-9 tobacco use codes for identifying smokers in a clinical population. Furthermore, with some limitations, these codes are suitable for adjustment of smoking status in genetic studies utilizing electronic health records. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should not be deterred by the unavailability of full-text records to determine smoking status if they have ICD-9 code histories.