Guidance of development, validation, and evaluation of algorithms for populating health status in observational studies of routinely collected data (DEVELOP-RCD).

IF 16.7 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Military Medical Research Pub Date : 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1186/s40779-024-00559-y
Wen Wang, Ying-Hui Jin, Mei Liu, Qiao He, Jia-Yue Xu, Ming-Qi Wang, Guo-Wei Li, Bo Fu, Si-Yu Yan, Kang Zou, Xin Sun
{"title":"Guidance of development, validation, and evaluation of algorithms for populating health status in observational studies of routinely collected data (DEVELOP-RCD).","authors":"Wen Wang, Ying-Hui Jin, Mei Liu, Qiao He, Jia-Yue Xu, Ming-Qi Wang, Guo-Wei Li, Bo Fu, Si-Yu Yan, Kang Zou, Xin Sun","doi":"10.1186/s40779-024-00559-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In recent years, there has been a growing trend in the utilization of observational studies that make use of routinely collected healthcare data (RCD). These studies rely on algorithms to identify specific health conditions (e.g. diabetes or sepsis) for statistical analyses. However, there has been substantial variation in the algorithm development and validation, leading to frequently suboptimal performance and posing a significant threat to the validity of study findings. Unfortunately, these issues are often overlooked.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically developed guidance for the development, validation, and evaluation of algorithms designed to identify health status (DEVELOP-RCD). Our initial efforts involved conducting both a narrative review and a systematic review of published studies on the concepts and methodological issues related to algorithm development, validation, and evaluation. Subsequently, we conducted an empirical study on an algorithm for identifying sepsis. Based on these findings, we formulated specific workflow and recommendations for algorithm development, validation, and evaluation within the guidance. Finally, the guidance underwent independent review by a panel of 20 external experts who then convened a consensus meeting to finalize it.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A standardized workflow for algorithm development, validation, and evaluation was established. Guided by specific health status considerations, the workflow comprises four integrated steps: assessing an existing algorithm's suitability for the target health status; developing a new algorithm using recommended methods; validating the algorithm using prescribed performance measures; and evaluating the impact of the algorithm on study results. Additionally, 13 good practice recommendations were formulated with detailed explanations. Furthermore, a practical study on sepsis identification was included to demonstrate the application of this guidance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The establishment of guidance is intended to aid researchers and clinicians in the appropriate and accurate development and application of algorithms for identifying health status from RCD. This guidance has the potential to enhance the credibility of findings from observational studies involving RCD.</p>","PeriodicalId":18581,"journal":{"name":"Military Medical Research","volume":"11 1","pages":"52"},"PeriodicalIF":16.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11302358/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Military Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40779-024-00559-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In recent years, there has been a growing trend in the utilization of observational studies that make use of routinely collected healthcare data (RCD). These studies rely on algorithms to identify specific health conditions (e.g. diabetes or sepsis) for statistical analyses. However, there has been substantial variation in the algorithm development and validation, leading to frequently suboptimal performance and posing a significant threat to the validity of study findings. Unfortunately, these issues are often overlooked.

Methods: We systematically developed guidance for the development, validation, and evaluation of algorithms designed to identify health status (DEVELOP-RCD). Our initial efforts involved conducting both a narrative review and a systematic review of published studies on the concepts and methodological issues related to algorithm development, validation, and evaluation. Subsequently, we conducted an empirical study on an algorithm for identifying sepsis. Based on these findings, we formulated specific workflow and recommendations for algorithm development, validation, and evaluation within the guidance. Finally, the guidance underwent independent review by a panel of 20 external experts who then convened a consensus meeting to finalize it.

Results: A standardized workflow for algorithm development, validation, and evaluation was established. Guided by specific health status considerations, the workflow comprises four integrated steps: assessing an existing algorithm's suitability for the target health status; developing a new algorithm using recommended methods; validating the algorithm using prescribed performance measures; and evaluating the impact of the algorithm on study results. Additionally, 13 good practice recommendations were formulated with detailed explanations. Furthermore, a practical study on sepsis identification was included to demonstrate the application of this guidance.

Conclusions: The establishment of guidance is intended to aid researchers and clinicians in the appropriate and accurate development and application of algorithms for identifying health status from RCD. This guidance has the potential to enhance the credibility of findings from observational studies involving RCD.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在常规收集数据的观察性研究中填充健康状况的算法开发、验证和评估指南(DEVELOP-RCD)。
背景:近年来,利用常规收集的医疗保健数据(RCD)进行观察性研究的趋势越来越明显。这些研究依靠算法来识别特定的健康状况(如糖尿病或败血症),以便进行统计分析。然而,在算法的开发和验证方面存在着很大的差异,导致算法的性能经常不尽如人意,并对研究结果的有效性构成了极大的威胁。遗憾的是,这些问题经常被忽视:我们系统地制定了旨在识别健康状况的算法(DEVELOP-RCD)的开发、验证和评估指南。我们最初的工作包括对已发表的有关算法开发、验证和评估的概念和方法问题的研究进行叙述性综述和系统性综述。随后,我们对一种用于识别败血症的算法进行了实证研究。基于这些研究结果,我们在指南中制定了算法开发、验证和评估的具体工作流程和建议。最后,由 20 位外部专家组成的评审小组对指南进行了独立评审,并召开了共识会议,最终确定了指南:结果:建立了算法开发、验证和评估的标准化工作流程。在特定健康状况考虑因素的指导下,该工作流程包括四个综合步骤:评估现有算法是否适合目标健康状况;使用推荐方法开发新算法;使用规定的绩效衡量标准验证算法;以及评估算法对研究结果的影响。此外,还制定了 13 项良好实践建议,并作了详细解释。此外,还包括一项关于败血症识别的实际研究,以展示该指南的应用:制定指南的目的是帮助研究人员和临床医生适当、准确地开发和应用从 RCD 中识别健康状况的算法。该指南有可能提高涉及 RCD 的观察性研究结果的可信度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Military Medical Research
Military Medical Research Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
38.40
自引率
2.80%
发文量
485
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Military Medical Research is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal that aims to share the most up-to-date evidence and innovative discoveries in a wide range of fields, including basic and clinical sciences, translational research, precision medicine, emerging interdisciplinary subjects, and advanced technologies. Our primary focus is on modern military medicine; however, we also encourage submissions from other related areas. This includes, but is not limited to, basic medical research with the potential for translation into practice, as well as clinical research that could impact medical care both in times of warfare and during peacetime military operations.
期刊最新文献
Hans Chinese consume less O2 for muscular work than european-american. Exosome autoantibody biomarkers for detection of lung cancer. International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) consensus on miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Mechanism of lactic acidemia-promoted pulmonary endothelial cells death in sepsis: role for CIRP-ZBP1-PANoptosis pathway. Microenvironment-responsive nanomedicines: a promising direction for tissue regeneration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1