Search

An abstraction network is an auxiliary network of nodes and links that provides a compact, high-level view of an ontology. Such a view lends support to ontology orientation, comprehension, and quality-assurance efforts. A methodology is presented for deriving a kind of abstraction network, called a partial-area taxonomy, for the Ontology of Clinical Research (OCRe). OCRe was selected as a representative of ontologies implemented using the Web Ontology Language (OWL) based on shared domains. The derivation of the partial-area taxonomy for the Entity hierarchy of OCRe is described. Utilizing the visualization of the content and structure of the hierarchy provided by the taxonomy, the Entity hierarchy is audited, and several errors and inconsistencies in OCRe’s modeling of its domain are exposed. After appropriate corrections are made to OCRe, a new partial-area taxonomy is derived. The generalizability of the paradigm of the derivation methodology to various families of biomedical ontologies is discussed.

Human studies are one of the most valuable sources of knowledge in biomedical research, but data about their design and results are currently widely dispersed in siloed systems. Federation of these data is needed to facilitate large-scale data analysis to realize the goals of evidence-based medicine. The Human Studies Database project has developed an informatics infrastructure for federated query of human studies databases, using a generalizable approach to ontology-based data access. Our approach has three main components. First, the Ontology of Clinical Research (OCRe) provides the reference semantics. Second, a data model, automatically derived from OCRe into XSD, maintains semantic synchrony of the underlying representations while facilitating data acquisition using common XML technologies. Finally, the Query Integrator issues queries distributed over the data, OCRe, and other ontologies such as SNOMED in BioPortal. We report on a demonstration of this infrastructure on data acquired from institutional systems and from ClinicalTrials.gov.

Human studies, encompassing interventional and observational studies, are the most important source of evidence for advancing our understanding of health, disease, and treatment options. To promote discovery, the design and results of these studies should be made machine-readable for large-scale data mining, synthesis, and re-analysis. The Human Studies Database Project aims to define and implement an informatics infrastructure for institutions to share the design of their human studies. We have developed the Ontology of Clinical Research (OCRe) to model study features such as design type, interventions, and outcomes to support scientific query and analysis. We are using OCRe as the reference semantics for federated data sharing of human studies over caGrid, and are piloting this implementation with several Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institutions.

A comprehensive understanding of evidence related to treatments for a disease is critical for planning effective clinical care, and for designing future trials. However, it is often difficult to comprehend the available evidence because of the complex combination of interventions across trials, in addition to the limited search and retrieval tools available in databases such as ClinicalTrials.gov. Here we demonstrate the use of networks to visualize and quantitatively analyze the co-occurrence of drug interventions across trials on depression in ClinicalTrials.gov. The analysis identified general co-occurrence patterns of interventions across all depression trials, and specific co-occurrence patterns related to antidepressants and natural supplements. These results led to insights about the current state of depression trials, and to a graph-theoretic measure to categorize interventions for a disease. We conclude by discussing the opportunities and challenges of generalizing our approach to analyze comparative interventional studies for any disease.

Formal, computer-interpretable representations of eligibility criteria would allow computers to better support key clinical research and care use cases such as eligibility determination. To inform the development of such formal representations for eligibility criteria, we conducted this study to characterize and quantify the complexity present in 1000 eligibility criteria randomly selected from studies in ClinicalTrials.gov. We classified the criteria by their complexity, semantic patterns, clinical content, and data sources. Our analyses revealed significant semantic and clinical content variability. We found that 93% of criteria were comprehensible, with 85% of these criteria having significant semantic complexity, including 40% relying on temporal data. We also identified several domains of clinical content. Using the findings of the study as requirements for computer-interpretable representations of eligibility, we discuss the challenges for creating such representations for use in clinical research and practice.

A systematic classification of study designs would be useful for researchers, systematic reviewers, readers, and research administrators, among others. As part of the Human Studies Database Project, we developed the Study Design Typology to standardize the classification of study designs in human research. We then performed a multiple observer masked evaluation of active research protocols in four institutions according to a standardized protocol. Thirty-five protocols were classified by three reviewers each into one of nine high-level study designs for interventional and observational research (e.g., N-of-1, Parallel Group, Case Crossover). Rater classification agreement was moderately high for the 35 protocols (Fleiss’ kappa = 0.442) and higher still for the 23 quantitative studies (Fleiss’ kappa = 0.463). We conclude that our typology shows initial promise for reliably distinguishing study design types for quantitative human research.

Clinical questions are often studied by randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of heterogeneous design. Systematic reviewers and trial designers need to compare the design and results across these trials. If trial information is available in computer processable form, computer-based visualization techniques can provide cognitive support for such comparisons. CTeXplorer offers systematic reviewers and trial designers a tool to better and more quickly understand design heterogeneity in RCTs. CTeXplorer supports dynamic queries on eligibility criteria, interventions, and outcomes in three linked views. We tested CTeXplorer for displaying 12 RCTs on prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Three target users found the representation and organization of information intuitive and easy to learn. They were able to use CTeXplorer to achieve a quick cognitive overview of a heterogeneous group of RCTs. This work shows the benefit of capturing trial information in computable form. Future work includes leveraging ontologies to enhance CTeXplorer visualizations.