Publication:

CodeMapper: semiautomatic coding of case definitions. A contribution from the ADVANCE project

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2017

Published Version

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

John Wiley and Sons Inc.
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Becker, Benedikt F.H., Paul Avillach, Silvana Romio, Erik M. van Mulligen, Daniel Weibel, Miriam C.J.M. Sturkenboom, and Jan A. Kors. 2017. “CodeMapper: semiautomatic coding of case definitions. A contribution from the ADVANCE project.” Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 26 (8): 998-1005. doi:10.1002/pds.4245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pds.4245.

Abstract

Abstract Background: Assessment of drug and vaccine effects by combining information from different healthcare databases in the European Union requires extensive efforts in the harmonization of codes as different vocabularies are being used across countries. In this paper, we present a web application called CodeMapper, which assists in the mapping of case definitions to codes from different vocabularies, while keeping a transparent record of the complete mapping process. Methods: CodeMapper builds upon coding vocabularies contained in the Metathesaurus of the Unified Medical Language System. The mapping approach consists of three phases. First, medical concepts are automatically identified in a free‐text case definition. Second, the user revises the set of medical concepts by adding or removing concepts, or expanding them to related concepts that are more general or more specific. Finally, the selected concepts are projected to codes from the targeted coding vocabularies. We evaluated the application by comparing codes that were automatically generated from case definitions by applying CodeMapper's concept identification and successive concept expansion, with reference codes that were manually created in a previous epidemiological study. Results: Automated concept identification alone had a sensitivity of 0.246 and positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.420 for reproducing the reference codes. Three successive steps of concept expansion increased sensitivity to 0.953 and PPV to 0.616. Conclusions: Automatic concept identification in the case definition alone was insufficient to reproduce the reference codes, but CodeMapper's operations for concept expansion provide an effective, efficient, and transparent way for reproducing the reference codes.

Description

Research Data

Keywords

Original Report, database extraction, concept identification, semantic operations, multiple medical vocabularies, UMLS

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Related Stories