<br>评估 MedDRA 到 ICD 术语映射,BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

评估 MedDRA 到 ICD 术语映射
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making ( IF 3.3 ) Pub Date : 2024-02-07 , DOI: 10.1186/s12911-023-02375-1
Xinyuan Zhang ₁ , Yixue Feng ₂ , Fang Li ₁ , Jin Ding ₁ , Danyal Tahseen ₃ , Ezekiel Hinojosa ₃ , Yong Chen ₄ , Cui Tao _{1,

5}

Affiliation

在这个大数据时代，数据协调是确保可重复、可扩展和协作研究的重要一步。因此，术语映射是协调异构数据的必要步骤。以监管活动医学词典（MedDRA）和国际疾病分类（ICD）为例，它们之间的映射对于药物安全和药物警戒研究至关重要。我们的主要目标是提供 MedDRA 和 ICD 之间映射状态的定量和定性分析。我们重点通过统一医学语言系统 (UMLS) 和观察性医疗结果合作伙伴通用数据模型 (OMOP CDM) 评估 MedDRA 和 ICD 之间的当前映射状态。我们总结了当前的映射统计数据并评估了当前 MedDRA-ICD 映射的质量；对于未映射的术语，我们使用自行开发的算法对最佳可能的映射候选进行排名，以增加映射覆盖范围。确定的 MedDRA-ICD 映射对覆盖了总体 MedDRA 首选术语 (PT) 的 27.23%。系统质量分析表明，在 UMLS 提供的映射对中，只有 51.44% 被认为是完全匹配。对于 2400 个采样的未映射术语，2400 个 MedDRA 首选术语 (PT) 中的 56 个可能与 ICD 中的术语完全匹配。由于粒度和焦点的差异，MedDRA 和 ICD 之间的一些映射对并不完全匹配。对于 72% 的未映射 PT 术语，所识别的精确匹配对说明了识别其他映射对的可能性。参考其自己的映射标准，一些未映射的术语应该有资格将 MedDRA 扩展到 UMLS 中的 ICD 映射。

"点击查看英文标题和摘要"

Evaluating MedDRA-to-ICD terminology mappings

In this era of big data, data harmonization is an important step to ensure reproducible, scalable, and collaborative research. Thus, terminology mapping is a necessary step to harmonize heterogeneous data. Take the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) for example, the mapping between them is essential for drug safety and pharmacovigilance research. Our main objective is to provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the mapping status between MedDRA and ICD. We focus on evaluating the current mapping status between MedDRA and ICD through the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) and Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP CDM). We summarized the current mapping statistics and evaluated the quality of the current MedDRA-ICD mapping; for unmapped terms, we used our self-developed algorithm to rank the best possible mapping candidates for additional mapping coverage. The identified MedDRA-ICD mapped pairs cover 27.23% of the overall MedDRA preferred terms (PT). The systematic quality analysis demonstrated that, among the mapped pairs provided by UMLS, only 51.44% are considered an exact match. For the 2400 sampled unmapped terms, 56 of the 2400 MedDRA Preferred Terms (PT) could have exact match terms from ICD. Some of the mapped pairs between MedDRA and ICD are not exact matches due to differences in granularity and focus. For 72% of the unmapped PT terms, the identified exact match pairs illustrate the possibility of identifying additional mapped pairs. Referring to its own mapping standard, some of the unmapped terms should qualify for the expansion of MedDRA to ICD mapping in UMLS.

更新日期：2024-02-07

点击分享查看原文

点击收藏

公开下载

阅读更多本刊新发论文本刊介绍/投稿指南