Creating longitudinal datasets and cleaning existing data identifiers in a cystic fibrosis registry using a novel Bayesian probabilistic approach from astronomy

Virtual patient identifier (vPID): Improving patient traceability using anonymized identifiers in Japanese healthcare insurance claims database

Objective

Japan's national-level healthcare insurance claims database (NDB) is a collective database that contains the entire information on healthcare services being provided to all citizens. However, existing anonymized identifiers (ID1 and ID2) have a poor capability of tracing patients' claims in the database, hindering longitudinal analyses. This study presents a virtual patient identifier (vPID), which we have developed on top of these existing identifiers, to improve the patient traceability.

Methods

vPID is a new composite identifier that intensively consolidates ID1 and ID2 co-occurring in an identical claim to allow to collect claims of each patient even though its ID1 or ID2 may change due to life events or clerical errors. We conducted a verification test with prefecture-level datasets of healthcare insurance claims and enrollee history records, which allowed us to compare vPID with the ground truth, in terms of an identifiability score (indicating a capability of distinguishing a patient's claims from another patient's claims) and a traceability score (indicating a capability of collecting claims of an identical patient).

Results

The verification test has clarified that vPID offers significantly higher traceability scores (0.994, Mie; 0.997, Gifu) than ID1 (0.863, Mie; 0.884, Gifu) and ID2 (0.602, Mie; 0.839, Gifu), and comparable (0.996, Mie) and lower (0.979, Gifu) identifiability scores.

Discussion

vPID is seemingly useful for a wide spectrum of analytic studies unless they focus on sensitive cases to the design limitation of vPID, such as patients experiencing marriage and job change, simultaneously, and same-sex twin children.

Conclusion

vPID successfully improves patient traceability, providing an opportunity for longitudinal analyses that used to be practically impossible for NDB. Further exploration is also necessary, in particular, for mitigating identification errors.

Review of Clinical Research Informatics

OBJECTIVES

Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) declares its scope in its name, but its content, both in terms of the clinical research it supports-and sometimes initiates-and the methods it has developed over time, reach much further than the name suggests. The goal of this review is to celebrate the extraordinary diversity of activity and of results, not as a prize-giving pageant, but in recognition of the field, the community that both serves and is sustained by it, and of its interdisciplinarity and its international dimension.

METHODS

Beyond personal awareness of a range of work commensurate with the author's own research, it is clear that, even with a thorough literature search, a comprehensive review is impossible. Moreover, the field has grown and subdivided to an extent that makes it very hard for one individual to be familiar with every branch or with more than a few branches in any depth. A literature survey was conducted that focused on informatics-related terms in the general biomedical and healthcare literature, and specific concerns ("artificial intelligence", "data models", "analytics", etc.) in the biomedical informatics (BMI) literature. In addition to a selection from the results from these searches, suggestive references within them were also considered.

RESULTS

The substantive sections of the paper-Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and "Big Data" Analytics; Common Data Models, Data Quality, and Standards; Phenotyping and Cohort Discovery; Privacy: Deidentification, Distributed Computation, Blockchain; Causal Inference and Real-World Evidence-provide broad coverage of these active research areas, with, no doubt, a bias towards this reviewer's interests and preferences, landing on a number of papers that stood out in one way or another, or, alternatively, exemplified a particular line of work.

CONCLUSIONS

CRI is thriving, not only in the familiar major centers of research, but more widely, throughout the world. This is not to pretend that the distribution is uniform, but to highlight the potential for this domain to play a prominent role in supporting progress in medicine, healthcare, and wellbeing everywhere. We conclude with the observation that CRI and its practitioners would make apt stewards of the new medical knowledge that their methods will bring forward.