skip to main content
10.1145/3170521.3170530acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesworkshops-icdcnConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A smart healthcare portal for clinical decision making and precision medicine

Published:04 January 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

There has been an unprecedented generation of healthcare data at clinical practices. With the availability of advanced computing frameworks and the ability to electronically mine data from disparate sources (e.g. demographics, genetics, imaging, treatment, clinical decisions, and outcomes) big data research in medicine has become a very active field of interest. In this paper, we discuss the challenges associated with designing clinical decision support systems that try to leverage such disparate data sources and create smart healthcare tools to aid medical practitioners for better patient care and treatment plans. We next propose an integrated data curation, storage and analytics portal, called HINGE (the Health Information Gateway and Exchange application), that can effectively address many of the outstanding challenges in this domain. HINGE specifically caters to healthcare data from radiation oncology patients however, the underlying formalisms and principles, as discussed here, are readily extendible to other disease types making it an attractive tool for the design of next generation clinical decision support systems.

References

  1. http://www.who.int. World Health Organization, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. https://www.cancer.gov/.national Cancer Institute, year = 2017, url = https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics/, urldate = 11-15-2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Paolo Fraccaro, Panagiotis Plastiras, Chiara Dentone, Antonio Di Biagio, Peter Weller, et al. Behind the screens: Clinical decision support methodologies-a review. Health Policy and Technology, 4(1):29--38, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Issam El Naqa. Biomedical informatics and panomics for evidence-based radiation therapy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 4(4):327--340, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Jatinder R Palta, Jason A Efstathiou, Justin E Bekelman, Sasa Mutic, Carl R Bogardus, Todd R McNutt, Peter E Gabriel, Colleen A Lawton, Anthony L Zietman, and Christopher M Rose. Developing a national radiation oncology registry: From acorns to oaks. Practical radiation oncology, 2(1):10--17, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Charles S Mayo, Marc L Kessler, Avraham Eisbruch, Grant Weyburne, Mary Feng, James A Hayman, Shruti Jolly, Issam El Naqa, Jean M Moran, Martha M Matuszak, et al. The big data effort in radiation oncology: Data mining or data farming? Advances in Radiation Oncology, 1(4):260--271, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Rebecca Siegel, Deepa Naishadham, and Ahmedin Jemal. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62(1):10--29, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Justin E Bekelman, Anand Shah, and Stephen M Hahn. Implications of comparative effectiveness research for radiation oncology. Practical radiation oncology, 1(2):72--80, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Seer.cancer.gov. Epidemiology, and end results program, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Reshma Jagsi, Paul Abrahamse, Sarah T Hawley, John J Graff, Ann S Hamilton, and Steven J Katz. Underascertainment of radiotherapy receipt in surveillance, epidemiology, and end results registry data. Cancer, 118(2):333--341, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Robert A Greenes. Clinical decision support: the road to broad adoption. Academic Press, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Massimo Esposito, Ivanoe De Falco, and Giuseppe De Pietro. An evolutionary-fuzzy dss for assessing health status in multiple sclerosis disease. International journal of medical informatics, 80(12):e245--e254, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Vijay K Mago, Ravinder Mehta, Ryan Woolrych, and Elpiniki I Papageorgiou. Supporting meningitis diagnosis amongst infants and children through the use of fuzzy cognitive mapping. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 12(1):98, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. David Riaño, Francis Real, Joan Albert López-Vallverdú, Fabio Campana, Sara Ercolani, Patrizia Mecocci, Roberta Annicchiarico, and Carlo Caltagirone. An ontology-based personalization of health-care knowledge to support clinical decisions for chronically ill patients. Journal of biomedical informatics, 45(3):429--446, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ray S Lin, Susan D Horn, John F Hurdle, and Alexander S Goldfarb-Rumyantzev. Single and multiple time-point prediction models in kidney transplant outcomes. Journal of biomedical informatics, 41(6):944--952, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Jorge LM Amaral, Agnaldo J Lopes, José M Jansen, Alvaro CD Faria, and Pedro L Melo. Machine learning algorithms and forced oscillation measurements applied to the automatic identification of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine, 105(3):183--193, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Baek Hwan Cho, Hwanjo Yu, Kwang-Won Kim, Tae Hyun Kim, In Young Kim, and Sun I Kim. Application of irregular and unbalanced data to predict diabetic nephropathy using visualization and feature selection methods. Artificial intelligence in medicine, 42(1):37--53, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Chih-Lin Chi, W Nick Street, and Marcia M Ward. Building a hospital referral expert system with a prediction and optimization-based decision support system algorithm. Journal of biomedical informatics, 41(2):371--386, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Naomi Sager, Margaret Lyman, Christine Bucknall, Ngo Nhan, and Leo J Tick. Natural language processing and the representation of clinical data. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 1(2):142--160, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Serguei Pakhomov, James Buntrock, and Patrick Duffy. High throughput modularized nlp system for clinical text. In Proceedings of the ACL 2005 on Interactive poster and demonstration sessions, pages 25--28. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Michael E Matheny, Fern FitzHenry, Theodore Speroff, Jennifer K Green, Michelle L Griffith, Eduard E Vasilevskis, Elliot M Fielstein, Peter L Elkin, and Steven H Brown. Detection of infectious symptoms from va emergency department and primary care clinical documentation. International journal of medical informatics, 81(3):143--156, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jean B Owen, Julia R White, Michael J Zelefsky, and J Frank Wilson. Using qrroâĎć survey data to assess compliance with quality indicators for breast and prostate cancer. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 6(6):442--447, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. nim.nih.gov. Common Data Element Dictionary, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. American Joint Committee on Cancer. American joint committee on cancer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Common terminology criteria for adverse events (ctcae).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Ethan Basch, Stephanie L Pugh, Amylou C Dueck, Sandra A Mitchell, Lawrence Berk, Shannon Fogh, Lauren J Rogak, Marcha Gatewood, Bryce B Reeve, Tito R Mendoza, et al. Feasibility of patient reporting of symptomatic adverse events via the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (pro-ctcae) in a chemoradiotherapy cooperative group multi-center clinical trial. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics, 98(2):409--418, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. AAPM TG 263 Standardizing Radiation Therapy Nomenclature. Aapm tg 263 - standardizing radiation therapy nomenclature.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. S Trent Rosenbloom, Joshua C Denny, Hua Xu, Nancy Lorenzi, William W Stead, and Kevin B Johnson. Data from clinical notes: a perspective on the tension between structure and flexible documentation. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 18(2):181--186, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. David S Carrell, Scott Halgrim, Diem-Thy Tran, Diana SM Buist, Jessica Chubak, Wendy W Chapman, and Guergana Savova. Using natural language processing to improve efficiency of manual chart abstraction in research: the case of breast cancer recurrence. American journal of epidemiology, 179(6):749--758, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaihong Liu, William R Hogan, and Rebecca S Crowley. Natural language processing methods and systems for biomedical ontology learning. Journal of biomedical informatics, 44(1):163--179, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Maria YY Law and Brent Liu. Dicom-rt and its utilization in radiation therapy. Radiographics, 29(3):655--667, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Maria YY Law, Brent Liu, and Lawrence W Chan. Dicom-rt-based electronic patient record information system for radiation therapy. Radiographics, 29(4):961--972, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Joel Poder, Johnson Yuen, Andrew Howie, Andrej Bece, and Joseph Bucci. Dose accumulation of multiple high dose rate prostate brachytherapy treatments in two commercially available image registration systems. Physica Medica, 43:43--48, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Di Yan, Frank Vicini, John Wong, and Alvaro Martinez. Adaptive radiation therapy. Physics in medicine and biology, 42(1):123, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Samuel B Park, James I Monroe, Min Yao, Mitchell Machtay, and Jason W Sohn. Composite radiation dose representation using fuzzy set theory. Information Sciences, 187:204--215, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. EH Balagamwala, T Djemil, SA Koyfman, ST Chao, L Angelov, JH Suh, and P Xia. 3d composite dose is necessary to assess cumulative spinal cord dose for retreatment of spinal tumors with stereotactic body radiotherapy. International Journal of Radiation OncologyâĂć BiologyâĂć Physics, 81(2):S647, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Reid F Thompson. Radonc: an r package for analysis of dose-volume histogram and three-dimensional structural data. Journal of Radiation Oncology Informatics, 6(1):98--110, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A smart healthcare portal for clinical decision making and precision medicine

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          Workshops ICDCN '18: Proceedings of the Workshop Program of the 19th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking
          January 2018
          151 pages
          ISBN:9781450363976
          DOI:10.1145/3170521
          • Conference Chair:
          • Doina Bein

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          © 2018 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of the United States government. As such, the United States Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 4 January 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)21
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader