13 articles
Articles prepublished February 07, 2012
 |
|
A Characterization of Local LOINC Mapping for Laboratory Tests in Three Large Institutions
Original Article
M. C. Lin (1), D. J. Vreeman (2, 3), C. J. McDonald (4), S. M. Huff (5)
(1) The Department of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; (2) Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA; (3) Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA; (4) Lister Hill Center, National Library of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; (5) Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Summary
Objectives: We characterized the use of laboratory LOINC® codes in three large institutions, focused on the following questions: 1) How many local codes had been voluntarily mapped to LOINC codes by each institution? 2) Could additional mappings be found by expert manual review for any local codes that were not initially mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? and 3) Are there any common characteristics of unmapped local codes that might explain why some local codes were not mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? Methods: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we obtained deidentified data from three large institutions. We calculated the percentage of local codes that have been mapped to LOINC by personnel at each of the institutions. We also analyzed a sample of unmapped local codes to determine whether any additional LOINC mappings could be made and identify common characteristics that might explain why some local codes did not have mappings. Results: Concept type coverage and concept token coverage (volume of instance data covered) of local codes mapped to LOINC codes were 0.44/0.59, 0.78/0.78 and 0.79/0.88 for ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief, respectively. After additional expert manual mapping, the results showed mapping rates of 0.63/0.72, 0.83/0.80 and 0.88/0.90, respectively. After excluding local codes which were not useful for inter-institutional data exchange, the mapping rates became 0.73/0.79, 0.90/0.99 and 0.93/0.997, respectively. Conclusions: Local codes for two institutions could be mapped to LOINC codes with 99% or better concept token coverage, but mapping for a third institution (a reference laboratory) only achieved 79% concept token coverage. Our research supports the conclusions of others that not all local codes should be assigned LOINC codes. There should also be public discussions to develop more precise rules for when LOINC codes should be assigned
Keywords
Controlled Vocabulary, LOINC, evaluation research, clinical laboratory information systems
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.3414/ME09-01-0072You may also be interested in...
| 1. | ||
Research Article L. Samal (1), T. A. Stavroudis (2), R. E. Miller (3), H. P. Lehmann (4), C. U. Lehmann (5) ACI 2011 2 3: 384-394 http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2010-09-RA-0052 | ||
| 2. | ||
Building a Controlled Health Vocabulary in Japanese Methods of Information in Medicine 2001 40 4: 307-314 | ||
Preprint Online November 21, 2011
|
|
A Characterization of Local LOINC Mapping for Laboratory Tests in Three Large Institutions
Original Article
M. C. Lin (1), D. J. Vreeman (2, 3), C. J. McDonald (4), S. M. Huff (5)
(1) The Department of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; (2) Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA; (3) Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA; (4) Lister Hill Center, National Library of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; (5) Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Summary
Objectives: We characterized the use of laboratory LOINC® codes in three large institutions, focused on the following questions: 1) How many local codes had been voluntarily mapped to LOINC codes by each institution? 2) Could additional mappings be found by expert manual review for any local codes that were not initially mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? and 3) Are there any common characteristics of unmapped local codes that might explain why some local codes were not mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? Methods: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we obtained deidentified data from three large institutions. We calculated the percentage of local codes that have been mapped to LOINC by personnel at each of the institutions. We also analyzed a sample of unmapped local codes to determine whether any additional LOINC mappings could be made and identify common characteristics that might explain why some local codes did not have mappings. Results: Concept type coverage and concept token coverage (volume of instance data covered) of local codes mapped to LOINC codes were 0.44/0.59, 0.78/0.78 and 0.79/0.88 for ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief, respectively. After additional expert manual mapping, the results showed mapping rates of 0.63/0.72, 0.83/0.80 and 0.88/0.90, respectively. After excluding local codes which were not useful for inter-institutional data exchange, the mapping rates became 0.73/0.79, 0.90/0.99 and 0.93/0.997, respectively. Conclusions: Local codes for two institutions could be mapped to LOINC codes with 99% or better concept token coverage, but mapping for a third institution (a reference laboratory) only achieved 79% concept token coverage. Our research supports the conclusions of others that not all local codes should be assigned LOINC codes. There should also be public discussions to develop more precise rules for when LOINC codes should be assigned
Keywords
Controlled Vocabulary, LOINC, evaluation research, clinical laboratory information systems
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.3414/ME09-01-0072You may also be interested in...
| 1. | ||
Research Article L. Samal (1), T. A. Stavroudis (2), R. E. Miller (3), H. P. Lehmann (4), C. U. Lehmann (5) ACI 2011 2 3: 384-394 http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2010-09-RA-0052 | ||
| 2. | ||
Building a Controlled Health Vocabulary in Japanese Methods of Information in Medicine 2001 40 4: 307-314 | ||
Articles prepublished September 14, 2010
|
|
A Characterization of Local LOINC Mapping for Laboratory Tests in Three Large Institutions
Original Article
M. C. Lin (1), D. J. Vreeman (2, 3), C. J. McDonald (4), S. M. Huff (5)
(1) The Department of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; (2) Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA; (3) Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA; (4) Lister Hill Center, National Library of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; (5) Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Summary
Objectives: We characterized the use of laboratory LOINC® codes in three large institutions, focused on the following questions: 1) How many local codes had been voluntarily mapped to LOINC codes by each institution? 2) Could additional mappings be found by expert manual review for any local codes that were not initially mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? and 3) Are there any common characteristics of unmapped local codes that might explain why some local codes were not mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? Methods: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we obtained deidentified data from three large institutions. We calculated the percentage of local codes that have been mapped to LOINC by personnel at each of the institutions. We also analyzed a sample of unmapped local codes to determine whether any additional LOINC mappings could be made and identify common characteristics that might explain why some local codes did not have mappings. Results: Concept type coverage and concept token coverage (volume of instance data covered) of local codes mapped to LOINC codes were 0.44/0.59, 0.78/0.78 and 0.79/0.88 for ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief, respectively. After additional expert manual mapping, the results showed mapping rates of 0.63/0.72, 0.83/0.80 and 0.88/0.90, respectively. After excluding local codes which were not useful for inter-institutional data exchange, the mapping rates became 0.73/0.79, 0.90/0.99 and 0.93/0.997, respectively. Conclusions: Local codes for two institutions could be mapped to LOINC codes with 99% or better concept token coverage, but mapping for a third institution (a reference laboratory) only achieved 79% concept token coverage. Our research supports the conclusions of others that not all local codes should be assigned LOINC codes. There should also be public discussions to develop more precise rules for when LOINC codes should be assigned
Keywords
Controlled Vocabulary, LOINC, evaluation research, clinical laboratory information systems
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.3414/ME09-01-0072You may also be interested in...
| 1. | ||
Research Article L. Samal (1), T. A. Stavroudis (2), R. E. Miller (3), H. P. Lehmann (4), C. U. Lehmann (5) ACI 2011 2 3: 384-394 http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2010-09-RA-0052 | ||
| 2. | ||
Building a Controlled Health Vocabulary in Japanese Methods of Information in Medicine 2001 40 4: 307-314 | ||
Preprint Online August 05, 2011
|
|
A Characterization of Local LOINC Mapping for Laboratory Tests in Three Large Institutions
Original Article
M. C. Lin (1), D. J. Vreeman (2, 3), C. J. McDonald (4), S. M. Huff (5)
(1) The Department of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; (2) Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA; (3) Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA; (4) Lister Hill Center, National Library of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; (5) Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Summary
Objectives: We characterized the use of laboratory LOINC® codes in three large institutions, focused on the following questions: 1) How many local codes had been voluntarily mapped to LOINC codes by each institution? 2) Could additional mappings be found by expert manual review for any local codes that were not initially mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? and 3) Are there any common characteristics of unmapped local codes that might explain why some local codes were not mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? Methods: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we obtained deidentified data from three large institutions. We calculated the percentage of local codes that have been mapped to LOINC by personnel at each of the institutions. We also analyzed a sample of unmapped local codes to determine whether any additional LOINC mappings could be made and identify common characteristics that might explain why some local codes did not have mappings. Results: Concept type coverage and concept token coverage (volume of instance data covered) of local codes mapped to LOINC codes were 0.44/0.59, 0.78/0.78 and 0.79/0.88 for ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief, respectively. After additional expert manual mapping, the results showed mapping rates of 0.63/0.72, 0.83/0.80 and 0.88/0.90, respectively. After excluding local codes which were not useful for inter-institutional data exchange, the mapping rates became 0.73/0.79, 0.90/0.99 and 0.93/0.997, respectively. Conclusions: Local codes for two institutions could be mapped to LOINC codes with 99% or better concept token coverage, but mapping for a third institution (a reference laboratory) only achieved 79% concept token coverage. Our research supports the conclusions of others that not all local codes should be assigned LOINC codes. There should also be public discussions to develop more precise rules for when LOINC codes should be assigned
Keywords
Controlled Vocabulary, LOINC, evaluation research, clinical laboratory information systems
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.3414/ME09-01-0072You may also be interested in...
| 1. | ||
Research Article L. Samal (1), T. A. Stavroudis (2), R. E. Miller (3), H. P. Lehmann (4), C. U. Lehmann (5) ACI 2011 2 3: 384-394 http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2010-09-RA-0052 | ||
| 2. | ||
Building a Controlled Health Vocabulary in Japanese Methods of Information in Medicine 2001 40 4: 307-314 | ||
Preprint Online July 26, 2011
|
|
A Characterization of Local LOINC Mapping for Laboratory Tests in Three Large Institutions
Original Article
M. C. Lin (1), D. J. Vreeman (2, 3), C. J. McDonald (4), S. M. Huff (5)
(1) The Department of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; (2) Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA; (3) Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA; (4) Lister Hill Center, National Library of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; (5) Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Summary
Objectives: We characterized the use of laboratory LOINC® codes in three large institutions, focused on the following questions: 1) How many local codes had been voluntarily mapped to LOINC codes by each institution? 2) Could additional mappings be found by expert manual review for any local codes that were not initially mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? and 3) Are there any common characteristics of unmapped local codes that might explain why some local codes were not mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? Methods: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we obtained deidentified data from three large institutions. We calculated the percentage of local codes that have been mapped to LOINC by personnel at each of the institutions. We also analyzed a sample of unmapped local codes to determine whether any additional LOINC mappings could be made and identify common characteristics that might explain why some local codes did not have mappings. Results: Concept type coverage and concept token coverage (volume of instance data covered) of local codes mapped to LOINC codes were 0.44/0.59, 0.78/0.78 and 0.79/0.88 for ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief, respectively. After additional expert manual mapping, the results showed mapping rates of 0.63/0.72, 0.83/0.80 and 0.88/0.90, respectively. After excluding local codes which were not useful for inter-institutional data exchange, the mapping rates became 0.73/0.79, 0.90/0.99 and 0.93/0.997, respectively. Conclusions: Local codes for two institutions could be mapped to LOINC codes with 99% or better concept token coverage, but mapping for a third institution (a reference laboratory) only achieved 79% concept token coverage. Our research supports the conclusions of others that not all local codes should be assigned LOINC codes. There should also be public discussions to develop more precise rules for when LOINC codes should be assigned
Keywords
Controlled Vocabulary, LOINC, evaluation research, clinical laboratory information systems
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.3414/ME09-01-0072You may also be interested in...
| 1. | ||
Research Article L. Samal (1), T. A. Stavroudis (2), R. E. Miller (3), H. P. Lehmann (4), C. U. Lehmann (5) ACI 2011 2 3: 384-394 http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2010-09-RA-0052 | ||
| 2. | ||
Building a Controlled Health Vocabulary in Japanese Methods of Information in Medicine 2001 40 4: 307-314 | ||
Preprint Online March 21, 2011
|
|
A Characterization of Local LOINC Mapping for Laboratory Tests in Three Large Institutions
Original Article
M. C. Lin (1), D. J. Vreeman (2, 3), C. J. McDonald (4), S. M. Huff (5)
(1) The Department of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; (2) Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA; (3) Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA; (4) Lister Hill Center, National Library of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; (5) Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Summary
Objectives: We characterized the use of laboratory LOINC® codes in three large institutions, focused on the following questions: 1) How many local codes had been voluntarily mapped to LOINC codes by each institution? 2) Could additional mappings be found by expert manual review for any local codes that were not initially mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? and 3) Are there any common characteristics of unmapped local codes that might explain why some local codes were not mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? Methods: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we obtained deidentified data from three large institutions. We calculated the percentage of local codes that have been mapped to LOINC by personnel at each of the institutions. We also analyzed a sample of unmapped local codes to determine whether any additional LOINC mappings could be made and identify common characteristics that might explain why some local codes did not have mappings. Results: Concept type coverage and concept token coverage (volume of instance data covered) of local codes mapped to LOINC codes were 0.44/0.59, 0.78/0.78 and 0.79/0.88 for ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief, respectively. After additional expert manual mapping, the results showed mapping rates of 0.63/0.72, 0.83/0.80 and 0.88/0.90, respectively. After excluding local codes which were not useful for inter-institutional data exchange, the mapping rates became 0.73/0.79, 0.90/0.99 and 0.93/0.997, respectively. Conclusions: Local codes for two institutions could be mapped to LOINC codes with 99% or better concept token coverage, but mapping for a third institution (a reference laboratory) only achieved 79% concept token coverage. Our research supports the conclusions of others that not all local codes should be assigned LOINC codes. There should also be public discussions to develop more precise rules for when LOINC codes should be assigned
Keywords
Controlled Vocabulary, LOINC, evaluation research, clinical laboratory information systems
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.3414/ME09-01-0072You may also be interested in...
| 1. | ||
Research Article L. Samal (1), T. A. Stavroudis (2), R. E. Miller (3), H. P. Lehmann (4), C. U. Lehmann (5) ACI 2011 2 3: 384-394 http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2010-09-RA-0052 | ||
| 2. | ||
Building a Controlled Health Vocabulary in Japanese Methods of Information in Medicine 2001 40 4: 307-314 | ||
Preprint Online March 04, 2011
|
|
A Characterization of Local LOINC Mapping for Laboratory Tests in Three Large Institutions
Original Article
M. C. Lin (1), D. J. Vreeman (2, 3), C. J. McDonald (4), S. M. Huff (5)
(1) The Department of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; (2) Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA; (3) Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA; (4) Lister Hill Center, National Library of Medicine, Washington, D.C., USA; (5) Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Summary
Objectives: We characterized the use of laboratory LOINC® codes in three large institutions, focused on the following questions: 1) How many local codes had been voluntarily mapped to LOINC codes by each institution? 2) Could additional mappings be found by expert manual review for any local codes that were not initially mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? and 3) Are there any common characteristics of unmapped local codes that might explain why some local codes were not mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? Methods: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we obtained deidentified data from three large institutions. We calculated the percentage of local codes that have been mapped to LOINC by personnel at each of the institutions. We also analyzed a sample of unmapped local codes to determine whether any additional LOINC mappings could be made and identify common characteristics that might explain why some local codes did not have mappings. Results: Concept type coverage and concept token coverage (volume of instance data covered) of local codes mapped to LOINC codes were 0.44/0.59, 0.78/0.78 and 0.79/0.88 for ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief, respectively. After additional expert manual mapping, the results showed mapping rates of 0.63/0.72, 0.83/0.80 and 0.88/0.90, respectively. After excluding local codes which were not useful for inter-institutional data exchange, the mapping rates became 0.73/0.79, 0.90/0.99 and 0.93/0.997, respectively. Conclusions: Local codes for two institutions could be mapped to LOINC codes with 99% or better concept token coverage, but mapping for a third institution (a reference laboratory) only achieved 79% concept token coverage. Our research supports the conclusions of others that not all local codes should be assigned LOINC codes. There should also be public discussions to develop more precise rules for when LOINC codes should be assigned
Keywords
Controlled Vocabulary, LOINC, evaluation research, clinical laboratory information systems
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.3414/ME09-01-0072You may also be interested in...
| 1. | ||
Research Article L. Samal (1), T. A. Stavroudis (2), R. E. Miller (3), H. P. Lehmann (4), C. U. Lehmann (5) ACI 2011 2 3: 384-394 http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2010-09-RA-0052 | ||
| 2. | ||
Building a Controlled Health Vocabulary in Japanese Methods of Information in Medicine 2001 40 4: 307-314 | ||
Articles
You've 150 Article(s) in your Basket.
Methods News
5 Fachzeitschriften feiern 2012 "runde" Jubiläen
2012 feiern gleich fünf der 21 Fachzeitschriften "runde" Jubiläen, die im Schattauer...
Methods issue 1/2012
Monitoring and analyzing physiological parameters under different conditions of health and disease...
Methods issue 6/2011
This issue of Methods of Information in Medicine celebrates the journal‘s first 50 years. As the...
Call for Papers
We are inviting submissions for a Focus Theme in Methods of Information in Medicine on "Web...
Invitation to Apply for the Student Editorial Board 2012/2013
The Journal Methods of Information in Medicine is now accepting applications from trainees who...
Methods issue 5/2011
In 2008 it was decided that Methods of Information in Medicine will continue the tradition of...