Auditing consistency and usefulness of LOINC use among three large institutions - Using version spaces for grouping LOINC codes

M. C. Lin, D. J. Vreeman, Clement J. McDonald, S. M. Huff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: We wanted to develop a method for evaluating the consistency and usefulness of LOINC code use across different institutions, and to evaluate the degree of interoperability that can be attained when using LOINC codes for laboratory data exchange. Our specific goals were to: (1) Determine if any contradictory knowledge exists in LOINC. (2) Determine how many LOINC codes were used in a truly interoperable fashion between systems. (3) Provide suggestions for improving the semantic interoperability of LOINC. Methods: We collected Extensional Definitions (EDs) of LOINC usage from three institutions. The version space approach was used to divide LOINC codes into small sets, which made auditing of LOINC use across the institutions feasible. We then compared pairings of LOINC codes from the three institutions for consistency and usefulness. Results: The number of LOINC codes evaluated were 1917, 1267 and 1693 as obtained from ARUP, Intermountain and Regenstrief respectively. There were 2022, 2030, and 2301 version spaces among ARUP and Intermountain, Intermountain and Regenstrief and ARUP and Regenstrief respectively. Using the EDs as the gold standard, there were 104, 109 and 112 pairs containing contradictory knowledge and there were 1165, 765 and 1121 semantically interoperable pairs. The interoperable pairs were classified into three levels: (1) Level I - No loss of meaning, complete information was exchanged by identical codes. (2) Level II - No loss of meaning, but processing of data was needed to make the data completely comparable. (3) Level III - Some loss of meaning. For example, tests with a specific 'method' could be rolled-up with tests that were 'methodless'. Conclusions: There are variations in the way LOINC is used for data exchange that result in some data not being truly interoperable across different enterprises. To improve its semantic interoperability, we need to detect and correct any contradictory knowledge within LOINC and add computable relationships that can be used for making reliable inferences about the data. The LOINC committee should also provide detailed guidance on best practices for mapping from local codes to LOINC codes and for using LOINC codes in data exchange.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)658-666
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Biomedical Informatics
Volume45
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes
Electronic data interchange
Interoperability
Semantics
Codes (standards)
Processing
Industry

Keywords

  • Clinical laboratory information systems
  • Consistency
  • Controlled vocabulary
  • Data exchange standards
  • Evaluation research
  • LOINC
  • LOINC usage
  • Semantic interoperability
  • Usefulness

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computer Science Applications
  • Health Informatics

Cite this

Auditing consistency and usefulness of LOINC use among three large institutions - Using version spaces for grouping LOINC codes. / Lin, M. C.; Vreeman, D. J.; McDonald, Clement J.; Huff, S. M.

In: Journal of Biomedical Informatics, Vol. 45, No. 4, 08.2012, p. 658-666.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9d2034a169ef427c9a0a3dda4c0e1c18,
title = "Auditing consistency and usefulness of LOINC use among three large institutions - Using version spaces for grouping LOINC codes",
abstract = "Objectives: We wanted to develop a method for evaluating the consistency and usefulness of LOINC code use across different institutions, and to evaluate the degree of interoperability that can be attained when using LOINC codes for laboratory data exchange. Our specific goals were to: (1) Determine if any contradictory knowledge exists in LOINC. (2) Determine how many LOINC codes were used in a truly interoperable fashion between systems. (3) Provide suggestions for improving the semantic interoperability of LOINC. Methods: We collected Extensional Definitions (EDs) of LOINC usage from three institutions. The version space approach was used to divide LOINC codes into small sets, which made auditing of LOINC use across the institutions feasible. We then compared pairings of LOINC codes from the three institutions for consistency and usefulness. Results: The number of LOINC codes evaluated were 1917, 1267 and 1693 as obtained from ARUP, Intermountain and Regenstrief respectively. There were 2022, 2030, and 2301 version spaces among ARUP and Intermountain, Intermountain and Regenstrief and ARUP and Regenstrief respectively. Using the EDs as the gold standard, there were 104, 109 and 112 pairs containing contradictory knowledge and there were 1165, 765 and 1121 semantically interoperable pairs. The interoperable pairs were classified into three levels: (1) Level I - No loss of meaning, complete information was exchanged by identical codes. (2) Level II - No loss of meaning, but processing of data was needed to make the data completely comparable. (3) Level III - Some loss of meaning. For example, tests with a specific 'method' could be rolled-up with tests that were 'methodless'. Conclusions: There are variations in the way LOINC is used for data exchange that result in some data not being truly interoperable across different enterprises. To improve its semantic interoperability, we need to detect and correct any contradictory knowledge within LOINC and add computable relationships that can be used for making reliable inferences about the data. The LOINC committee should also provide detailed guidance on best practices for mapping from local codes to LOINC codes and for using LOINC codes in data exchange.",
keywords = "Clinical laboratory information systems, Consistency, Controlled vocabulary, Data exchange standards, Evaluation research, LOINC, LOINC usage, Semantic interoperability, Usefulness",
author = "Lin, {M. C.} and Vreeman, {D. J.} and McDonald, {Clement J.} and Huff, {S. M.}",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.jbi.2012.01.008",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "658--666",
journal = "Journal of Biomedical Informatics",
issn = "1532-0464",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Auditing consistency and usefulness of LOINC use among three large institutions - Using version spaces for grouping LOINC codes

AU - Lin, M. C.

AU - Vreeman, D. J.

AU - McDonald, Clement J.

AU - Huff, S. M.

PY - 2012/8

Y1 - 2012/8

N2 - Objectives: We wanted to develop a method for evaluating the consistency and usefulness of LOINC code use across different institutions, and to evaluate the degree of interoperability that can be attained when using LOINC codes for laboratory data exchange. Our specific goals were to: (1) Determine if any contradictory knowledge exists in LOINC. (2) Determine how many LOINC codes were used in a truly interoperable fashion between systems. (3) Provide suggestions for improving the semantic interoperability of LOINC. Methods: We collected Extensional Definitions (EDs) of LOINC usage from three institutions. The version space approach was used to divide LOINC codes into small sets, which made auditing of LOINC use across the institutions feasible. We then compared pairings of LOINC codes from the three institutions for consistency and usefulness. Results: The number of LOINC codes evaluated were 1917, 1267 and 1693 as obtained from ARUP, Intermountain and Regenstrief respectively. There were 2022, 2030, and 2301 version spaces among ARUP and Intermountain, Intermountain and Regenstrief and ARUP and Regenstrief respectively. Using the EDs as the gold standard, there were 104, 109 and 112 pairs containing contradictory knowledge and there were 1165, 765 and 1121 semantically interoperable pairs. The interoperable pairs were classified into three levels: (1) Level I - No loss of meaning, complete information was exchanged by identical codes. (2) Level II - No loss of meaning, but processing of data was needed to make the data completely comparable. (3) Level III - Some loss of meaning. For example, tests with a specific 'method' could be rolled-up with tests that were 'methodless'. Conclusions: There are variations in the way LOINC is used for data exchange that result in some data not being truly interoperable across different enterprises. To improve its semantic interoperability, we need to detect and correct any contradictory knowledge within LOINC and add computable relationships that can be used for making reliable inferences about the data. The LOINC committee should also provide detailed guidance on best practices for mapping from local codes to LOINC codes and for using LOINC codes in data exchange.

AB - Objectives: We wanted to develop a method for evaluating the consistency and usefulness of LOINC code use across different institutions, and to evaluate the degree of interoperability that can be attained when using LOINC codes for laboratory data exchange. Our specific goals were to: (1) Determine if any contradictory knowledge exists in LOINC. (2) Determine how many LOINC codes were used in a truly interoperable fashion between systems. (3) Provide suggestions for improving the semantic interoperability of LOINC. Methods: We collected Extensional Definitions (EDs) of LOINC usage from three institutions. The version space approach was used to divide LOINC codes into small sets, which made auditing of LOINC use across the institutions feasible. We then compared pairings of LOINC codes from the three institutions for consistency and usefulness. Results: The number of LOINC codes evaluated were 1917, 1267 and 1693 as obtained from ARUP, Intermountain and Regenstrief respectively. There were 2022, 2030, and 2301 version spaces among ARUP and Intermountain, Intermountain and Regenstrief and ARUP and Regenstrief respectively. Using the EDs as the gold standard, there were 104, 109 and 112 pairs containing contradictory knowledge and there were 1165, 765 and 1121 semantically interoperable pairs. The interoperable pairs were classified into three levels: (1) Level I - No loss of meaning, complete information was exchanged by identical codes. (2) Level II - No loss of meaning, but processing of data was needed to make the data completely comparable. (3) Level III - Some loss of meaning. For example, tests with a specific 'method' could be rolled-up with tests that were 'methodless'. Conclusions: There are variations in the way LOINC is used for data exchange that result in some data not being truly interoperable across different enterprises. To improve its semantic interoperability, we need to detect and correct any contradictory knowledge within LOINC and add computable relationships that can be used for making reliable inferences about the data. The LOINC committee should also provide detailed guidance on best practices for mapping from local codes to LOINC codes and for using LOINC codes in data exchange.

KW - Clinical laboratory information systems

KW - Consistency

KW - Controlled vocabulary

KW - Data exchange standards

KW - Evaluation research

KW - LOINC

KW - LOINC usage

KW - Semantic interoperability

KW - Usefulness

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84865095603&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84865095603&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jbi.2012.01.008

DO - 10.1016/j.jbi.2012.01.008

M3 - Article

VL - 45

SP - 658

EP - 666

JO - Journal of Biomedical Informatics

JF - Journal of Biomedical Informatics

SN - 1532-0464

IS - 4

ER -