Table 0; documenting the steps to go from clinical database to research dataset.

OBJECTIVES: Data-driven decision support tools have been increasingly recognized to transform health care. However, such tools are often developed on predefined research datasets without adequate knowledge of the origin of this data and how it was selected. How a dataset is extracted from a clinical database can profoundly impact the validity, interpretability and interoperability of the dataset, and downstream analyses, yet is rarely reported. Therefore, we present a case study illustrating how a definitive patient list was extracted from a clinical source database and how this can be reported. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A single-center observational study was performed at an academic hospital in the Netherlands to illustrate the impact of selecting a definitive patient list for research from a clinical source database, and the importance of documenting this process. All admissions from the critical care database admitted between January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2023, were used. RESULTS: An interdisciplinary team collaborated to identify and address potential sources of data insufficiency and uncertainty. We demonstrate a stepwise data preparation process, reducing the clinical source database of 54,218 admissions to a definitive patient list of 21,553 admissions. Transparent documentation of the data preparation process improves the quality of the definitive patient list before analysis of the corresponding patient data. This study generated seven important recommendations for preparing observational health-care data for research purposes. CONCLUSION: Documenting data preparation is essential for understanding a research dataset originating from a clinical source database before analyzing health-care data. The findings contribute to establishing data standards and offer insights into the complexities of preparing health-care data for scientific investigation. Meticulous data preparation and documentation thereof will improve research validity and advance critical care.

Deep embedded clustering generalisability and adaptation for integrating mixed datatypes: two critical care cohorts.

We validated a Deep Embedded Clustering (DEC) model and its adaptation for integrating mixed datatypes (in this study, numerical and categorical variables). Deep Embedded Clustering (DEC) is a promising technique capable of managing extensive sets of variables and non-linear relationships. Nevertheless, DEC cannot adequately handle mixed datatypes. Therefore, we adapted DEC by replacing the autoencoder with an X-shaped variational autoencoder (XVAE) and optimising hyperparameters for cluster stability. We call this model "X-DEC". We compared DEC and X-DEC by reproducing a previous study that used DEC to identify clusters in a population of intensive care patients. We assessed internal validity based on cluster stability on the development dataset. Since generalisability of clustering models has insufficiently been validated on external populations, we assessed external validity by investigating cluster generalisability onto an external validation dataset. We concluded that both DEC and X-DEC resulted in clinically recognisable and generalisable clusters, but X-DEC produced much more stable clusters.

A guide to sharing open healthcare data under the General Data Protection Regulation.

Sharing healthcare data is increasingly essential for developing data-driven improvements in patient care at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). However, it is also very challenging under the strict privacy legislation of the European Union (EU). Therefore, we explored four successful open ICU healthcare databases to determine how open healthcare data can be shared appropriately in the EU. A questionnaire was constructed based on the Delphi method. Then, follow-up questions were discussed with experts from the four databases. These experts encountered similar challenges and regarded ethical and legal aspects to be the most challenging. Based on the approaches of the databases, expert opinion, and literature research, we outline four distinct approaches to openly sharing healthcare data, each with varying implications regarding data security, ease of use, sustainability, and implementability. Ultimately, we formulate seven recommendations for sharing open healthcare data to guide future initiatives in sharing open healthcare data to improve patient care and advance healthcare.