Biomedical data integration: Using XML to link clinical and research data sets

Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 329-336

  Berman, Jules J ^a   Bhatia, Kishor ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Common data elements; Data integration; Interoperability; Translational research; XML

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPUTER LANGUAGE; DATA ANALYSIS; EXPERT SYSTEM; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; LOGIC; REVIEW;

DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; INTERNET; LOGIC; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICAL RECORDS; RESEARCH;

EID: 18844381124     PISSN: 14737159     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737159.5.3.329     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Anderson NL, Anderson NG. The human plasma proteome: history, character and diagnostic prospects. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 1, 845-867 (2002). The Andersons have been leaders in proteomic diagnostics for many years. This is a very useful review of blood-based protein diagnostics.
2. Benowitz S. Biomarker boom slowed by validation concerns. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 96(18), 1356-1357 (2004).
3. Evans WE, Relling MV. Pharmacogenomics: translating functional genomics into rational therapeutics. Science 286, 487-491 (1999).
4. Mancinelli L, Cronin M, Sadee W. Pharmacogenomics: the promise of personalized medicine. AAPS Pharm Sci. 2(1), E4 (2000).
5. McCarthy JJ, Hilfiker R. The use of single-nucleotide polymorphism maps in pharmacogenomics. Nature Biotechnol. 18(5), 505-508 (2000). One of the few papers in the pharmacogenomics field to balance enthusiasm with a realistic assessment of the impedimenta that have delayed the routine clinical use of pharmacogenomics.
6. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 351(27), 2817-2826 (2004).
7. Warzel DB, Andonaydis C, McCurry B, Chilukuri R, Ishmukhamedov S, Covitz P. Common data element (CDE) management and deployment in clinical trials. AMIA Ann. Symp. Proc. 1048 (2003).
8. Covitz PA, Hartel F, Schaefer C et al. caCORE: a common infrastructure for cancer informatics. Bioinformatics 19(18), 2404-2412 (2003).
9. Cantor MN, Lussier YA. Putting data integration into practice: using biomedical terminologies to add structure to existing data sources. Proc. AMIA Symp. 125-129 (2003).
10. Baorto DM, Cimino JJ, Parvin CA, Kahn MG. Combining laboratory data sets from multiple institutions using the logical observation identifier names and codes (LOINC). Int. J. Med. Inf. 51(1), 29-37 (1998).
11. Martin-Sanchez F, Maojo V, Lopez-Campos G. Integrating genomics into health information systems. Methods Inf. Med. 41, 25-30 (2002).
12. Sensmeier J. Advancing the state of data integration in Healthcare. J. Healthc. Inf. Manag. 17(4), 58-61 (2003).
13. Karasavvas KA, Baldock R, Burger A. Bioinformatics integrations and agent technology. J. Biomed. Inform. 37, 205-219 (2004).
14. Sujansky W. Heterogeneous database integration in biomedicine. J. Biomed. Inform. 34, 285-298 (2001).
15. Berman JJ. Integrating pathology data with XML. Human Pathol. 36(2), 139-145 (2005).
16. Stein LD. Integrating biological databases. Nature Rev. Genetics 4, 337-345 (2003). Lincoln Stein is a very important figure who has helped integrate biologic databases. This paper provides a very good explanation of some of the technical problems encountered when integrating heterogeneous research data sets.
17. Mork P, Halevy A, Tarczy-Hornoch P. A model for data integration systems of biomedical data applied to online genetic databases. Proc. AMIA Symp. 473-477 (2001).
18. Nagarajan R. Database challenges in the integration of biomedical data sets. Proceedings of the 30th VLDB Conference, Toronto, Canada, 1202-1213 (2004).
19. Ahmed K, Ayers D, Birbeck M et al. Professional XML Meta Data. Wrox Press Ltd, Birmingham, UK (2001).
20. White C, Quin L, Burman L. Mastering XML: Premium Edition. Sybex, CA, USA (2001).
21. Solbrig HR: Metadata and the reintegration of clinical information: ISO 11179. MD Comput. 3, 25-28 (2000).
22. Brazma A, Hingamp P, Quackenbush J et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME) - toward standards for microarray data. Nature Genet. 29, 365-371 (2001).
23. Spellman PT, Miller M, Stewart J et al. Design and implementation of microarray gene expression markup language (MAGE-ML). Genome Biol. 3, 0046 (2002).
24. Berman JJ, Edgerton ME, Friedman B. The tissue microarray data exchange specification: a community-based, open source tool for sharing tissue microarray data. BMC Med. Inform. Dec. Mak. 3, 5 (2003).
25. Harris MA, Clark J, Ireland A et al. Gene Ontology Consortium. The Gene Ontology (GO) database and informatics resource. Nucl. Acids Res. 32, D258-D261 (2004).
26. Berman JJ. Tumor classification: molecular analysis meets Aristotle. BMC Cancer 4, 10 (2004).
27. Hwang KB, Kong SW, Greenberg SA, Park PJ. Combining gene expression data from different generations of oligonucleotide arrays. BMC Bioinformatics 5, 159 (2004).
28. Powsner SM, Costa J, Homer RJ. Clinicians are from Mars and pathologists are from Venus. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 24, 1040-1046 (2000).
29. Berman JJ. Doublet method for very fast autocoding. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 4(1), 16 (2004).
30. Hripcsak G, Friedman C, Alderson PO, DuMouchel W, Johnson SB, Clayton PD. Unlocking clinical data from narrative reports: a study of natural language processing. Ann. Intern. Med. 122(9), 681-688 (1995).
31. Berman JJ. Resources for comparing the speed and performance of medical autocoders. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 4(1), 8 (2004).
32. Department of Health and Human Services. 45 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), Parts 160 through 164. Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information (Final Rule). Federal Register 65(250), 82461-82510 (2000).
33. Berman JJ. Zero-check: a zero-knowledge protocol for reconciling patient identities across institutions. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 128, 344-346 (2004).
34. Department of Health and Human Services. 45 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), Protection of Human Subjects (Common Rule). Federal Register 56, 28003 (1991). Although Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act privacy regulations are the best known, the Common Rule sets the basic principles for protecting patients from research risks, mandating the activities of Institutional Review Boards and using human tissues in support of medical research. It is essential reading for anyone involved in human subject research.
35. Berman JJ. Concept-match medical data scrubbing: how pathology data sets can be used in research. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 127, 680-686 (2003).
36. Berman JJ. Threshold protocol for the exchange of confidential medical data. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2, 12 (2002).
37. Berman JJ. Racing to share pathology data. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 121(2), 169-171 (2004).
38. Malin B, Sweeney L. How (not) to protect genomic data privacy in a distributed network: using trail re-identification to evaluate and design anonymity protection systems. J. Biomed. Inform. 37(3), 179-192 (2004).
39. Sweeney L. Three computational systems for disclosing medical data in the year 1999. Medinfo. 9(Pt 2), 1124-1129 (1998).
40. Biskup J, Bleumer G. Cryptographic protection of health information: cost and benefit. Int. J. Biomed. Comput. 43, 61-67 (1966).
41. Berman JJ. Confidentiality issues for medical data miners. Artif. Intell. Med. 26, 25-36 (2002).
42. Kohane IS. Bioinformatics and clinical informatics: the imperative to collaborate. JAMIA 7, 512-516 (2000).
43. Hammond WE. HL7 - more than a communications standard. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 96, 266-271 (2003).