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: The All of Us Research Program (All of Us) aims to recruit over a million participants to further precision medicine. Essential to the verification of biobanks is a replication of known associations to establish validity. Here, we evaluated how well All of Us data replicated known cigarette smoking associations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We defined smoking exposure as follows: (1) an EHR Smoking exposure that used International Classification of Disease codes; (2) participant provided information (PPI) Ever Smoking; and, (3) PPI Current Smoking, both from the lifestyle survey. We performed a phenome-wide association study (PheWAS) for each smoking exposure measurement type. For each, we compared the effect sizes derived from the PheWAS to published meta-analyses that studied cigarette smoking from PubMed. We defined two levels of replication of meta-analyses: (1) nominally replicated: which required agreement of direction of effect size, and (2) fully replicated: which required overlap of confidence intervals. RESULTS: PheWASes with EHR Smoking, PPI Ever Smoking, and PPI Current Smoking revealed 736, 492, and 639 phenome-wide significant associations, respectively. We identified 165 meta-analyses representing 99 distinct phenotypes that could be matched to EHR phenotypes. At P < .05, 74 were nominally replicated and 55 were fully replicated. At P < 2.68 × 10-5 (Bonferroni threshold), 58 were nominally replicated and 40 were fully replicated. DISCUSSION: Most phenotypes found in published meta-analyses associated with smoking were nominally replicated in All of Us. Both survey and EHR definitions for smoking produced similar results. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of studying common exposures using All of Us data.

OBJECTIVE: A participant's medical history is important in clinical research and can be captured from electronic health records (EHRs) and self-reported surveys. Both can be incomplete, EHR due to documentation gaps or lack of interoperability and surveys due to recall bias or limited health literacy. This analysis compares medical history collected in the All of Us Research Program through both surveys and EHRs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The All of Us medical history survey includes self-report questionnaire that asks about diagnoses to over 150 medical conditions organized into 12 disease categories. In each category, we identified the 3 most and least frequent self-reported diagnoses and retrieved their analogues from EHRs. We calculated agreement scores and extracted participant demographic characteristics for each comparison set. RESULTS: The 4th All of Us dataset release includes data from 314 994 participants; 28.3% of whom completed medical history surveys, and 65.5% of whom had EHR data. Hearing and vision category within the survey had the highest number of responses, but the second lowest positive agreement with the EHR (0.21). The Infectious disease category had the lowest positive agreement (0.12). Cancer conditions had the highest positive agreement (0.45) between the 2 data sources. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Our study quantified the agreement of medical history between 2 sources-EHRs and self-reported surveys. Conditions that are usually undocumented in EHRs had low agreement scores, demonstrating that survey data can supplement EHR data. Disagreement between EHR and survey can help identify possible missing records and guide researchers to adjust for biases.

OBJECTIVE: Family health history is important to clinical care and precision medicine. Prior studies show gaps in data collected from patient surveys and electronic health records (EHRs). The All of Us Research Program collects family history from participants via surveys and EHRs. This Demonstration Project aims to evaluate availability of family health history information within the publicly available data from All of Us and to characterize the data from both sources. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surveys were completed by participants on an electronic portal. EHR data was mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership data model. We used descriptive statistics to perform exploratory analysis of the data, including evaluating a list of medically actionable genetic disorders. We performed a subanalysis on participants who had both survey and EHR data. RESULTS: There were 54 872 participants with family history data. Of those, 26% had EHR data only, 63% had survey only, and 10.5% had data from both sources. There were 35 217 participants with reported family history of a medically actionable genetic disorder (9% from EHR only, 89% from surveys, and 2% from both). In the subanalysis, we found inconsistencies between the surveys and EHRs. More details came from surveys. When both mentioned a similar disease, the source of truth was unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Compiling data from both surveys and EHR can provide a more comprehensive source for family health history, but informatics challenges and opportunities exist. Access to more complete understanding of a person's family health history may provide opportunities for precision medicine.

OBJECTIVE: DNA biobanks linked to comprehensive electronic health records systems are potentially powerful resources for pharmacogenetic studies. This study sought to develop natural-language-processing algorithms to extract drug-dose information from clinical text, and to assess the capabilities of such tools to automate the data-extraction process for pharmacogenetic studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A manually validated warfarin pharmacogenetic study identified a cohort of 1125 patients with a stable warfarin dose, in which 776 patients were managed by Coumadin Clinic physicians, and the remaining 349 patients were managed by their providers. The authors developed two algorithms to extract weekly warfarin doses from both data sets: a regular expression-based program for semistructured Coumadin Clinic notes; and an advanced weekly dose calculator based on an existing medication information extraction system (MedEx) for narrative providers' notes. The authors then conducted an association analysis between an automatically extracted stable weekly dose of warfarin and four genetic variants of VKORC1 and CYP2C9 genes. The performance of the weekly dose-extraction program was evaluated by comparing it with a gold standard containing manually curated weekly doses. Precision, recall, F-measure, and overall accuracy were reported. Associations between known variants in VKORC1 and CYP2C9 and warfarin stable weekly dose were performed with linear regression adjusted for age, gender, and body mass index. RESULTS: The authors' evaluation showed that the MedEx-based system could determine patients' warfarin weekly doses with 99.7% recall, 90.8% precision, and 93.8% accuracy. Using the automatically extracted weekly doses of warfarin, the authors successfully replicated the previous known associations between warfarin stable dose and genetic variants in VKORC1 and CYP2C9.