Clinical Data Element Ontology for Unified Indexing and Retrieval of Data Elements across Multiple Metadata Registries

Abstract

ObjectivesClassification of data elements (DEs), which is used in clinical documents is challenging, even in across ISO/IEC 11179 compliant clinical metadata registries (MDRs) due to no existence of reliable standard for identifying DEs. We suggest the Clinical Data Element Ontology (CDEO) for unified indexing and retrieval of DEs across MDRs.MethodsThe CDEO was developed through harmonization of existing clinical document models and empirical analysis of MDRs. For specific classification as using data element concept (DEC), The Simple Knowledge Organization System was chosen to represent and organize the DECs. Six basic requirements also were set that the CDEO must meet, including indexing target to be a DEC, organizing DECs using their semantic relationships. For evaluation of the CDEO, three indexers mapped 400 DECs to more than 1 CDEO term in order to determine whether the CDEO produces a consistent index to a given DEC. The level of agreement among the indexers was determined by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).ResultsWe developed CDEO with 578 concepts. Through two application use-case scenarios, usability of the CDEO is evaluated and it fully met all of the considered requirements. The ICC among the three indexers was estimated to be 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.66).ConclusionsThe CDEO organizes DECs originating from different MDRs into a single unified conceptual structure. It enables highly selective search and retrieval of relevant DEs from multiple MDRs for clinical documentation and clinical research data aggregation.

Tackling NCD in LMIC: Achievements and Lessons Learned From the NHLBI—UnitedHealth Global Health Centers of Excellence Program

“…Many of these challenges are common to meta-analysis and other data pooling efforts. 20, 21 Some of the key lessons during this process included: anticipating and planning common studies across sites upfront; using common protocols and data collection instruments with standardized variables across sites when possible (e.g., Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium 20 ); employing data management best practices at all sites to minimize errors in data submitted for harmonization; and, allowing time and resources during the lifetime of the Program for talent exchange and targeted resource support to foster high quality outputs and collaboration between groups.…”

Understanding the Nature of Metadata: Systematic Review

“…Fortunately, the information was often machine-actionable, and therefore, automatic processing, especially matching and mapping, was possible. However, our literature review revealed known hurdles even before the metadata could be processed: heterogeneous metadata interfaces caused a siloization [ 72 ], which resulted in the impediment of metadata acquisition and reuse. If the information could be accessed, the processing also had problems: automatic matching from a broader to a more detailed level was nearly impossible [ 20 ], and if the matching results were promising, an automated mapping without human interaction was complicated or rather infeasible [ 16 , 24 ].…”

Clinical MetaData ontology: a simple classification scheme for data elements of clinical data based on semantics

“…For this purpose ISO/IEC 11179 provides a classification scheme (CS) structure for the conceptual classification and identification of data elements. Thus, when constructing an MDR or registering designed CDEs into an MDR, it is also necessary to select or design the contents of the CS using controlled vocabularies [20, 21]. However, most MDRs do not fully utilize or register a CS, and some MDRs support only two or three concept items in each CS for classifying their own metadata.…”