英国前瞻性队列(ALSPAC)与关联电子健康记录之间关于特应性皮炎亚型的分歧。

IF 3.7 4区 医学 Q1 DERMATOLOGY Clinical and Experimental Dermatology Pub Date : 2024-11-22 DOI:10.1093/ced/llae196
Julian Matthewman, Amy Mulick, Nick Dand, Daniel Major-Smith, Alasdair Henderson, Neil Pearce, Spiros Denaxas, Rita Iskandar, Amanda Roberts, Rosie P Cornish, Sara J Brown, Lavinia Paternoster, Sinéad M Langan
{"title":"英国前瞻性队列(ALSPAC)与关联电子健康记录之间关于特应性皮炎亚型的分歧。","authors":"Julian Matthewman, Amy Mulick, Nick Dand, Daniel Major-Smith, Alasdair Henderson, Neil Pearce, Spiros Denaxas, Rita Iskandar, Amanda Roberts, Rosie P Cornish, Sara J Brown, Lavinia Paternoster, Sinéad M Langan","doi":"10.1093/ced/llae196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Subtypes of atopic dermatitis (AD) have been derived from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) based on the presence and severity of symptoms reported in questionnaires (severe-frequent, moderate-frequent, moderate-declining, mild-intermittent, unaffected-rare). Good agreement between ALSPAC and linked electronic health records (EHRs) would increase trust in the clinical validity of these subtypes and allow inference of subtypes from EHRs alone, which would enable their study in large primary care databases.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Firstly, to explore whether the presence and number of AD records in EHRs agree with AD symptom and severity reports from ALSPAC. Secondly, to explore whether EHRs agree with ALSPAC-derived AD subtypes. Thirdly, to construct models to classify ALSPAC-derived AD subtypes using EHRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from the ALSPAC prospective cohort study from 11 timepoints until age 14 years (1991-2008), linked to local general practice EHRs. We assessed how far ALSPAC questionnaire responses and derived subtypes agreed with AD as established in EHRs using different AD definitions (e.g. diagnosis and/or prescription) and other AD-related records. We classified AD subtypes using EHRs, fitting multinomial logistic regression models, tuning hyperparameters and evaluating performance in the testing set [receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity and specificity].</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 8828 individuals out of a total 13 898 had been assigned an AD subtype and also had linked EHRs. The number of AD-related codes in EHRs generally increased with the severity of the AD subtype. However, not all patients with the severe-frequent subtype had AD in EHRs, and many with the unaffected-rare subtype did have AD in EHRs. When predicting the ALSPAC AD subtype using EHRs, the best tuned model had an ROC AUC of 0.65, a sensitivity of 0.29 and a specificity of 0.83 (both macro-averaged). When different sets of predictors were used, individuals with missing EHR coverage were excluded, and subtypes were combined, sensitivity was not considerably improved.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ALSPAC and EHRs disagreed not only on AD subtypes, but also on whether children had AD or not. Researchers should be aware that individuals considered to have AD in one source may not be considered to have AD in another.</p>","PeriodicalId":10324,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Dermatology","volume":" ","pages":"1537-1546"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11583923/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disagreement concerning atopic dermatitis subtypes between an English prospective cohort (ALSPAC) and linked electronic health records.\",\"authors\":\"Julian Matthewman, Amy Mulick, Nick Dand, Daniel Major-Smith, Alasdair Henderson, Neil Pearce, Spiros Denaxas, Rita Iskandar, Amanda Roberts, Rosie P Cornish, Sara J Brown, Lavinia Paternoster, Sinéad M Langan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ced/llae196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Subtypes of atopic dermatitis (AD) have been derived from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) based on the presence and severity of symptoms reported in questionnaires (severe-frequent, moderate-frequent, moderate-declining, mild-intermittent, unaffected-rare). Good agreement between ALSPAC and linked electronic health records (EHRs) would increase trust in the clinical validity of these subtypes and allow inference of subtypes from EHRs alone, which would enable their study in large primary care databases.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Firstly, to explore whether the presence and number of AD records in EHRs agree with AD symptom and severity reports from ALSPAC. Secondly, to explore whether EHRs agree with ALSPAC-derived AD subtypes. Thirdly, to construct models to classify ALSPAC-derived AD subtypes using EHRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from the ALSPAC prospective cohort study from 11 timepoints until age 14 years (1991-2008), linked to local general practice EHRs. We assessed how far ALSPAC questionnaire responses and derived subtypes agreed with AD as established in EHRs using different AD definitions (e.g. diagnosis and/or prescription) and other AD-related records. We classified AD subtypes using EHRs, fitting multinomial logistic regression models, tuning hyperparameters and evaluating performance in the testing set [receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity and specificity].</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 8828 individuals out of a total 13 898 had been assigned an AD subtype and also had linked EHRs. The number of AD-related codes in EHRs generally increased with the severity of the AD subtype. However, not all patients with the severe-frequent subtype had AD in EHRs, and many with the unaffected-rare subtype did have AD in EHRs. When predicting the ALSPAC AD subtype using EHRs, the best tuned model had an ROC AUC of 0.65, a sensitivity of 0.29 and a specificity of 0.83 (both macro-averaged). When different sets of predictors were used, individuals with missing EHR coverage were excluded, and subtypes were combined, sensitivity was not considerably improved.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ALSPAC and EHRs disagreed not only on AD subtypes, but also on whether children had AD or not. Researchers should be aware that individuals considered to have AD in one source may not be considered to have AD in another.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Experimental Dermatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1537-1546\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11583923/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Experimental Dermatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ced/llae196\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ced/llae196","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:特应性皮炎(AD)的亚型是根据调查问卷中报告的症状存在和严重程度(严重-频繁、中度-频繁、中度-减轻、轻度-间歇、未受影响/罕见)从雅芳家长和儿童纵向研究(ALSPAC)中得出的。ALSPAC 与链接的电子健康记录(EHRs)之间的良好一致性将增加对这些亚型临床有效性的信任,并允许仅从 EHRs 推断亚型,从而能够在大型初级保健数据库中对其进行研究:1.1. 探讨电子病历中的 AD 记录的存在和数量是否与 ALSPAC 的 AD 症状和严重程度报告一致;2. 探讨电子病历是否与 ALSPAC 派生的 AD 亚型一致;3. 利用电子病历构建模型,对 ALSPAC 派生的 AD 亚型进行分类:我们使用了ALSPAC前瞻性队列研究从11个时间点到14岁(1991-2008年)的数据,这些数据与当地全科医生的电子健康记录相关联。我们使用不同的AD定义(如诊断和/或处方)和其他与AD相关的记录,评估了ALSPAC问卷回答和得出的亚型在多大程度上与电子病历中确定的AD一致。我们利用电子病历对注意力缺失症亚型进行了分类,拟合了调整超参数的多项式逻辑回归模型,并评估了测试集的性能(ROC AUC、准确性、灵敏度和特异性):在总共 13,898 人中,有 8,828 人被指定为注意力缺失症亚型,并与电子病历建立了链接。电子健康记录中与注意力缺失症相关的代码数量通常随着注意力缺失症亚型的严重程度而增加,但并非所有严重-频繁亚型的患者都在电子健康记录中记录了注意力缺失症,而许多未受影响/罕见亚型的患者在电子健康记录中记录了注意力缺失症。当使用电子健康记录预测ALSPAC AD亚型时,最佳调整模型的ROC AUC为0.65,灵敏度为0.29,特异性为0.83(均为宏观平均值);当使用不同的预测因子集、排除电子健康记录覆盖缺失的个体以及合并亚型时,灵敏度并没有显著提高:结论:ALSPAC和电子病历不仅在注意力缺失症亚型上存在分歧,而且在儿童是否患有注意力缺失症上也存在分歧。研究人员应注意,在一个来源中被认为患有注意力缺失症的人在另一个来源中可能不被认为患有注意力缺失症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Disagreement concerning atopic dermatitis subtypes between an English prospective cohort (ALSPAC) and linked electronic health records.

Background: Subtypes of atopic dermatitis (AD) have been derived from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) based on the presence and severity of symptoms reported in questionnaires (severe-frequent, moderate-frequent, moderate-declining, mild-intermittent, unaffected-rare). Good agreement between ALSPAC and linked electronic health records (EHRs) would increase trust in the clinical validity of these subtypes and allow inference of subtypes from EHRs alone, which would enable their study in large primary care databases.

Objectives: Firstly, to explore whether the presence and number of AD records in EHRs agree with AD symptom and severity reports from ALSPAC. Secondly, to explore whether EHRs agree with ALSPAC-derived AD subtypes. Thirdly, to construct models to classify ALSPAC-derived AD subtypes using EHRs.

Methods: We used data from the ALSPAC prospective cohort study from 11 timepoints until age 14 years (1991-2008), linked to local general practice EHRs. We assessed how far ALSPAC questionnaire responses and derived subtypes agreed with AD as established in EHRs using different AD definitions (e.g. diagnosis and/or prescription) and other AD-related records. We classified AD subtypes using EHRs, fitting multinomial logistic regression models, tuning hyperparameters and evaluating performance in the testing set [receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity and specificity].

Results: Overall, 8828 individuals out of a total 13 898 had been assigned an AD subtype and also had linked EHRs. The number of AD-related codes in EHRs generally increased with the severity of the AD subtype. However, not all patients with the severe-frequent subtype had AD in EHRs, and many with the unaffected-rare subtype did have AD in EHRs. When predicting the ALSPAC AD subtype using EHRs, the best tuned model had an ROC AUC of 0.65, a sensitivity of 0.29 and a specificity of 0.83 (both macro-averaged). When different sets of predictors were used, individuals with missing EHR coverage were excluded, and subtypes were combined, sensitivity was not considerably improved.

Conclusions: ALSPAC and EHRs disagreed not only on AD subtypes, but also on whether children had AD or not. Researchers should be aware that individuals considered to have AD in one source may not be considered to have AD in another.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
2.40%
发文量
389
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Dermatology (CED) is a unique provider of relevant and educational material for practising clinicians and dermatological researchers. We support continuing professional development (CPD) of dermatology specialists to advance the understanding, management and treatment of skin disease in order to improve patient outcomes.
期刊最新文献
Comment on 'How useful is chest X-ray in addition to routine QuantiFERON® in the detection of latent tuberculosis prior to biologics?' Incidence and prevalence of prurigo nodularis and associated comorbidities in Denmark from 1995 to 2021. National Dermatological Surgery Sustainability Survey: An Evaluation of Healthcare Professional Beliefs and Practices. The Future of Dermatological Research: Ethical Implications of Artificial Intelligence Integration for Medical Students. A case of Olmsted syndrome with dramatic response to erlotinib.
×
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