1. Evaluating global and local sequence alignment methods for comparing patient medical records
- Author
-
Nilay Shah, Lixia Yao, and Ming Huang
- Subjects
Local sequence alignment ,Cross-Cultural Comparison ,Dynamic time warping ,020205 medical informatics ,Computer science ,Electronic health record ,Health Informatics ,Sequence alignment ,Needleman–Wunsch algorithm ,02 engineering and technology ,Therapeutics ,Needleman-Wunsch algorithm ,lcsh:Computer applications to medicine. Medical informatics ,Temporal sequence ,03 medical and health sciences ,Similarity (network science) ,Diagnosis ,0202 electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering ,Electronic Health Records ,Humans ,Patient similarity ,030304 developmental biology ,Sequence (medicine) ,Smith-Waterman algorithm ,Smith–Waterman algorithm ,0303 health sciences ,Disease trajectory ,business.industry ,Health Policy ,Research ,Pattern recognition ,Prognosis ,Computer Science Applications ,lcsh:R858-859.7 ,Artificial intelligence ,business ,Algorithms - Abstract
Background Sequence alignment is a way of arranging sequences (e.g., DNA, RNA, protein, natural language, financial data, or medical events) to identify the relatedness between two or more sequences and regions of similarity. For Electronic Health Records (EHR) data, sequence alignment helps to identify patients of similar disease trajectory for more relevant and precise prognosis, diagnosis and treatment of patients. Methods We tested two cutting-edge global sequence alignment methods, namely dynamic time warping (DTW) and Needleman-Wunsch algorithm (NWA), together with their local modifications, DTW for Local alignment (DTWL) and Smith-Waterman algorithm (SWA), for aligning patient medical records. We also used 4 sets of synthetic patient medical records generated from a large real-world EHR database as gold standard data, to objectively evaluate these sequence alignment algorithms. Results For global sequence alignments, 47 out of 80 DTW alignments and 11 out of 80 NWA alignments had superior similarity scores than reference alignments while the rest 33 DTW alignments and 69 NWA alignments had the same similarity scores as reference alignments. Forty-six out of 80 DTW alignments had better similarity scores than NWA alignments with the rest 34 cases having the equal similarity scores from both algorithms. For local sequence alignments, 70 out of 80 DTWL alignments and 68 out of 80 SWA alignments had larger coverage and higher similarity scores than reference alignments while the rest DTWL alignments and SWA alignments received the same coverage and similarity scores as reference alignments. Six out of 80 DTWL alignments showed larger coverage and higher similarity scores than SWA alignments. Thirty DTWL alignments had the equal coverage but better similarity scores than SWA. DTWL and SWA received the equal coverage and similarity scores for the rest 44 cases. Conclusions DTW, NWA, DTWL and SWA outperformed the reference alignments. DTW (or DTWL) seems to align better than NWA (or SWA) by inserting new daily events and identifying more similarities between patient medical records. The evaluation results could provide valuable information on the strengths and weakness of these sequence alignment methods for future development of sequence alignment methods and patient similarity-based studies.
- Published
- 2019