Identifying erroneous height and weight values from adult electronic health records in the All of Us research program.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic Health Records (EHR) are a useful data source for research, but their usability is hindered by measurement errors. This study investigated an automatic error detection algorithm for adult height and weight measurements in EHR for the All of Us Research Program (All of Us). METHODS: We developed reference charts for adult heights and weights that were stratified on participant sex. Our analysis included 4,076,534 height and 5,207,328 wt measurements from âˆ¼ 150,000 participants. Errors were identified using modified standard deviation scores, differences from their expected values, and significant changes between consecutive measurements. We evaluated our method with chart-reviewed heights (8,092) and weights (9,039) from 250 randomly selected participants and compared it with the current cleaning algorithm in All of Us. RESULTS: The proposed algorithm classified 1.4 % of height and 1.5 % of weight errors in the full cohort. Sensitivity was 90.4 % (95 % CI: 79.0-96.8 %) for heights and 65.9 % (95 % CI: 56.9-74.1 %) for weights. Precision was 73.4 % (95 % CI: 60.9-83.7 %) for heights and 62.9 (95 % CI: 54.0-71.1 %) for weights. In comparison, the current cleaning algorithm has inferior performance in sensitivity (55.8 %) and precision (16.5 %) for height errors while having higher precision (94.0 %) and lower sensitivity (61.9 %) for weight errors. DISCUSSION: Our proposed algorithm outperformed in detecting height errors compared to weights. It can serve as a valuable addition to the current All of Us cleaning algorithm for identifying erroneous height values.

Illuminating the landscape of high-level clinical trial opportunities in the All of Us Research Program.

OBJECTIVE: With its size and diversity, the All of Us Research Program has the potential to power and improve representation in clinical trials through ancillary studies like Nutrition for Precision Health. We sought to characterize high-level trial opportunities for the diverse participants and sponsors of future trial investment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We matched All of Us participants with available trials on ClinicalTrials.gov based on medical conditions, age, sex, and geographic location. Based on the number of matched trials, we (1) developed the Trial Opportunities Compass (TOC) to help sponsors assess trial investment portfolios, (2) characterized the landscape of trial opportunities in a phenome-wide association study (PheWAS), and (3) assessed the relationship between trial opportunities and social determinants of health (SDoH) to identify potential barriers to trial participation. RESULTS: Our study included 181 529 All of Us participants and 18 634 trials. The TOC identified opportunities for portfolio investment and gaps in currently available trials across federal, industrial, and academic sponsors. PheWAS results revealed an emphasis on mental disorder-related trials, with anxiety disorder having the highest adjusted increase in the number of matched trials (59% [95% CI, 57-62]; P < 1e-300). Participants from certain communities underrepresented in biomedical research, including self-reported racial and ethnic minorities, had more matched trials after adjusting for other factors. Living in a nonmetropolitan area was associated with up to 13.1 times fewer matched trials. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: All of Us data are a valuable resource for identifying trial opportunities to inform trial portfolio planning. Characterizing these opportunities with consideration for SDoH can provide guidance on prioritizing the most pressing barriers to trial participation.

Balancing efficacy and computational burden: weighted mean, multiple imputation, and inverse probability weighting methods for item non-response in reliable scales.

IMPORTANCE: Scales often arise from multi-item questionnaires, yet commonly face item non-response. Traditional solutions use weighted mean (WMean) from available responses, but potentially overlook missing data intricacies. Advanced methods like multiple imputation (MI) address broader missing data, but demand increased computational resources. Researchers frequently use survey data in the All of Us Research Program (All of Us), and it is imperative to determine if the increased computational burden of employing MI to handle non-response is justifiable. OBJECTIVES: Using the 5-item Physical Activity Neighborhood Environment Scale (PANES) in All of Us, this study assessed the tradeoff between efficacy and computational demands of WMean, MI, and inverse probability weighting (IPW) when dealing with item non-response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Synthetic missingness, allowing 1 or more item non-response, was introduced into PANES across 3 missing mechanisms and various missing percentages (10%-50%). Each scenario compared WMean of complete questions, MI, and IPW on bias, variability, coverage probability, and computation time. RESULTS: All methods showed minimal biases (all <5.5%) for good internal consistency, with WMean suffered most with poor consistency. IPW showed considerable variability with increasing missing percentage. MI required significantly more computational resources, taking >8000 and >100 times longer than WMean and IPW in full data analysis, respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The marginal performance advantages of MI for item non-response in highly reliable scales do not warrant its escalated cloud computational burden in All of Us, particularly when coupled with computationally demanding post-imputation analyses. Researchers using survey scales with low missingness could utilize WMean to reduce computing burden.