↓ Skip to main content

Identification of subjects with polycystic ovary syndrome using electronic health records

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Identification of subjects with polycystic ovary syndrome using electronic health records
Published in
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12958-015-0115-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victor Castro, Yuanyuan Shen, Sheng Yu, Sean Finan, Cindy Ta Pau, Vivian Gainer, Candace C. Keefe, Guergana Savova, Shawn N. Murphy, Tianxi Cai, Corrine K. Welt

Abstract

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a heterogeneous disorder because of the variable criteria used for diagnosis. Therefore, International Classification of Diseases 9 (ICD-9) codes may not accurately capture the diagnostic criteria necessary for large scale PCOS identification. We hypothesized that use of electronic medical records text and data would more specifically capture PCOS subjects. Subjects with PCOS were identified in the Partners Healthcare Research Patients Data Registry by searching for the term "polycystic ovary syndrome" using natural language processing (n = 24,930). A training subset of 199 identified charts was reviewed and categorized based on likelihood of a true Rotterdam PCOS diagnosis, i.e. two out of three of the following: irregular menstrual cycles, hyperandrogenism and/or polycystic ovary morphology. Data from the history, physical exam, laboratory and radiology results were codified and extracted from notes of definite PCOS subjects. Thirty-two terms were used to build an algorithm for identifying definite PCOS cases and applied to the rest of the dataset. The positive predictive value cutoff was set at 76.8 % to maximize the number of subjects available for study. A true positive predictive value for the algorithm was calculated after review of 100 charts from subjects identified as definite PCOS cases with at least two documented Rotterdam criteria. The positive predictive value was compared to that calculated using 200 charts identified using the ICD-9 code for PCOS (256.4; n = 13,670). In addition, a cohort of previously recruited PCOS subjects was submitted for algorithm validation. Chart review demonstrated that 64 % were confirmed as definitely PCOS using the algorithm, with a 9 % false positive rate. 66 % of subjects identified by ICD-9 code for PCOS could be confirmed as definitely PCOS, with an 8.5 % false positive rate. There was no significant difference in the positive predictive values using the two methods (p = 0.2). However, the number of charts that had insufficient confirmatory data was lower using the algorithm (5 % vs 11 %; p < 0.04). Of 477 subjects with PCOS recruited and examined individually and present in the database as patients, 451 were found within the algorithm dataset. Extraction of text parameters along with codified data improves the confidence in PCOS patient cohorts identified using the electronic medical record. However, the positive predictive value was not significantly different when using ICD-9 codes or the specific algorithm. Further studies are needed to determine the positive predictive value of the two methods in additional electronic medical record datasets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 68 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 15 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 10%
Engineering 3 4%
Mathematics 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,827,682
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
#500
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,580
of 284,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.