In the practice of administering health care, single patient records may be collected among different health-care systems with each system using patient identifiers that are different from the identifiers used by the other health-care systems. Furthermore, patient records collected within the same health-care institution may use multiple identifiers for referring to the same patient. Still further, typographic errors, which happen routinely in the course of collecting patient information and are unavoidable, can result in inaccurate and inconsistent data about a single patient. In some instances, certain data collected about a patient, such as weight, body-mass-index (BMI), or height, may be falsely reported. For example, a patient might underreport his or her true weight due to reasons of vanity. Ultimately, such inconsistencies lead to incomplete data sharing among health-care professionals, patients, and data repositories.
Record linkage is the methodology of bringing together corresponding records from two or more files or finding duplicates within files. The term record linkage originated in the public health area when files associated with an individual patient were brought together using name, date of birth, and other information. Patient record linkage, or matching, is a key process for identifying and connecting records belonging to the same patient, including records created over extended time periods and across several disparate data sources.
A formal mathematical foundation for record linkage was proposed by Fellegi and Sunter, and uses a field-specific weight that is based on the agreement/disagreement between corresponding fields of data. In the Fellegi-Sunter (F-S) approach, two datasets A and B are matched by way of classifying pairs in a product space A×B from the two datasets A and B into M, a set of true matches, and U, a set of true nonmatches.
To establish the match or nonmatch status of two records, the F-S method produces a composite likelihood ratio that is the sum of field-specific weights for each record-pair. The field-specific weight is based on a likelihood ratio whose numerator is the probability that a matching field agrees given the comparison pair is a true match; its denominator is the probability that a matching field agrees given that comparison pair is a true nonmatch. This ratio reflects the relative importance of a comparison field in predicting match status. For example, agreement on date of birth receives a higher positive weight than agreement on sex, but disagreement on date of birth receives fewer penalties (a smaller negative weight) than sex receives for disagreement. The sum of all field-specific weights produces the composite match score for a pair.
While the F-S method may produce reasonably accurate results, it does not explicitly accommodate the notion of a value-specific weight or otherwise leverage the information contained in field-specific values. As a result, each field receives an identical agreement weight for all record pairs regardless of the relative importance of the specific values being compared for that field. Likewise F-S does not take into account the information that is embodied in a timeseries of records, including for example, the time intervals that separate serial episodes for entities that have experienced two or more episodes of activity that resulted in creating and storing records of the episodes.
Further limitations resulting in the F-S approach and prior attempts to provide record linkage include:
Accordingly, it is therefore desirable to establish systems and methods for providing more accurate and efficient record linkage including using time-oriented information that is readily available for each of the records in the repository and for any new record for which a match in the repository is sought. Such record linkage technology, which is particularly useful when patient records lack any unique identifier, offers numerous benefits to physicians and health-care organizations, not only by improving the quality of patient care, but also by facilitating clinical research and population-based studies. It is further important for the aggregating and integrating of health information.
A system, methods and computer-readable media are provided for facilitating record matching and entity resolution and for enabling improvements in record linkage including determining records that refer to the same entity or individual as one or more other records in a collection of records that are stored in a computer system and detecting matches of a new record with one or more others that already exist and are stored in online databases. A power-spectrum-based temporal pattern-specific weight may be incorporated into record linkage methods to enhance the record linkage accuracy and statistical performance. For example, in embodiments, a value-specific weight may be calculated from a population-based frequency of field-specific values and provides an opportunity to capture and measure the relative importance of specific values found in a field. A timeseries-derived Bayesian power spectrum weight may be calculated from the population-based frequency of temporal pattern-specific values in terms of intensities at various frequencies of the power spectrum computed from the timeseries, and further provides an opportunity to capture and measure the relative importance of specific sequences of care episodes.
In embodiments, time series are formed by (a) provisionally appending a proband episode date-time stamp to those records of other episodes for which conventional multivariate evidence exists favoring linkage of the proband to other previously linked episodes, (b) calculating Bayesian power spectra for each such combination, (c) repeatedly randomly sampling the spectra to calculate the median likelihood for each, with for example, Bonferroni or other suitable correction for timeseries length, (d) normalizing the median likelihood values so as to be on a scale that is commensurate with the weights calculated by conventional record-linkage system and method, (e) combining each scaled median likelihood with the corresponding conventional record-linkage weights using, for example, a root-mean-square or dot-product cosine measure or other suitable score, and (f) rank-ordering the resulting set according to the combined score.
In such ways, embodiments of the invention provide advantages including more accurate, dynamic, and robust matching, and matching where limited data exists. Embodiments further offer numerous benefits to physicians and health-care organizations, not only by improving the quality of patient care, but also by facilitating clinical research and population-based studies.
Embodiments of the invention are described in detail below with reference to the attached drawing figures, wherein:
The subject matter of the present invention is described with specificity herein to meet statutory requirements. However, the description itself is not intended to limit the scope of this patent. Rather, the inventor has contemplated that the claimed subject matter might also be embodied in other ways, to include different steps or combinations of steps similar to the ones described in this document, in conjunction with other present or future technologies. Moreover, although the terms “step” and/or “block” may be used herein to connote different elements of methods employed, the terms should not be interpreted as implying any particular order among or between various steps herein disclosed unless and except when the order of individual steps is explicitly described.
As one skilled in the art will appreciate, embodiments of the invention may be embodied as, among other things, a method, system, or set of instructions embodied on one or more computer-readable media. Accordingly, the embodiments may take the form of a hardware embodiment, a software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware. In one embodiment, the invention takes the form of a computer-program product that includes computer-usable instructions embodied on one or more computer-readable media.
Computer-readable media include both volatile and nonvolatile media, removable and nonremovable media, and contemplate media readable by a database, a switch, and various other network devices. By way of example and not limitation, computer-readable media comprise media implemented in any method or technology for storing information, including computer-storage media and communications media. Examples of stored information include computer-useable instructions, data structures, program modules, and other data representations. Computer-readable storage media examples include, but are not limited to, information-delivery media, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile discs (DVD), holographic media or other optical disc storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage, other magnetic storage devices, and other storage devices. These technologies can store data momentarily, temporarily, or permanently.
As discussed above, embodiments of the invention are provided for facilitating record matching and entity resolution by incorporating power-spectrum-based temporal pattern-specific weighting into record linkage methods. In some embodiments, health-care-related time series data are used for accurate and efficient record matching, by extracting maximum amounts of information from short time series, which may occur infrequently. For example, a healthy patient may visit the doctor's office only once every several years, thereby resulting in a limited time series of information. By way of analogy, similar challenges are encountered by experimental astrophysicists who study gravitational waves. Out of necessity, these astrophysicists developed techniques that extract the maximum amount of information from short time series that arise from rare, brief events. Similar methodologies used in empirical identification of time series associated with gravitational waves can be fruitfully applied to the problem of identifying other short time series, including time series that arise in health and health-care contexts.
For example, whenever two compact celestial objects, such as white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes, are in close orbit, they emit intense gravitational waves. Over time, as the objects spiral closer to each other, the frequency and amplitude of this radiation increases, resulting in a swept-frequency pattern known as a “chirp.” Gravitational waves have not yet been directly detected on Earth because of their extremely small effect on matter. But their existence can be inferred from changes in the orbital periods of the objects, for example, changes in the orbital periods of binary pulsars, such as PSR 1913+16. ‘Orbital lifetime’ is a characteristic property of celestial objects that are sources of gravitational radiation. Orbital lifetime determines the average number of binary stars (i.e., “binaries”) in the universe whose gravitational waves are likely to be detectable. Short-lifetime binaries produce strong, readily detectable gravitational radiation but are rare. Long-lifetime binaries, which are more numerous, emit gravitational waves that are weak and hard to detect.
Gravitational radiation detection is facilitated using a class of instruments such as LIGO (“Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory,” a ground-based interferometer that comprises multiple observatories, separated over a geographical distance), which is most sensitive in the frequency band (30 Hz to 7 KHz) where two neutron stars are about to merge. The time frame for such a merger or coalescence of the objects lasts only a few seconds. Thus LIGO or similar instruments must detect this “blink” of gravitational waves emitted over a few seconds out of a million-year orbital lifetime. It is calculated that only about once per decade or so does a coalescence of two neutron stars happen in a manner that could be detected by LIGO.
Current gravitational-wave detector design accounts for this very limited duration of data. There are approximately 3×10{circumflex over ( )}10 msec per year, so even a fluctuation that has a probability of 10{circumflex over ( )}-10 of occurring is likely to occur in one year of data. To eliminate most false-positive signals, a signal-to-noise ratio threshold is used or, in some cases, multi-detector coincidence discrimination. However, concerning record linkage, there is no possibility of coincidence discrimination by multiple events synchronously incident upon two or more ‘detectors’. Each event is incident upon only one facility. Therefore, some embodiments of the invention, which utilize methods similar to gravitational wave analytic methodologies, do not depend on multidetector coincidence detection.
Furthermore, certain timeseries analysis and forecasting methods are highly sensitive to the sequence in which events occur. For example, the frequency domain power spectrum of a time series s(t) can accurately establish the probability of the identity of an object when ordinary human and timeseries methods fail to identify the object correctly. The power spectrum of a classical symphony or other musical work reveals in each time segment the dominating key, through the pattern of spectral intensities at frequencies associated with fundamentals and harmonics. If the sections of the musical work are played in a different order, the power spectrum would not change, but the ear and the mind, which perform a time-frequency analysis, perceive a very different content compared to how the original symphony is perceived. Therefore, to avoid excessive sensitivity to arbitrary differences in the sequencing of events, embodiments of the invention rely on frequency-domain power spectrum analysis methods to detect predominant frequencies and motifs.
On a finite segment of length delta-t, the resolution in frequency is 1/delta-t. We can give up fine resolution in frequency space but, by so doing, gain information about when an event happened. Therefore, for some embodiments, rather than working in frequency space with arbitrarily good resolution, we operate in the time-frequency plane, achieving a good compromise between the accuracy in frequency and the accuracy in time. This has advantages when we aim to detect transient phenomena, such as gravitational wave bursts or irregular alternations of patterns of health-care activity (motifs) that arise in conditions that undergo periods of exacerbation and remission, such as multiple sclerosis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease.
In this regard, it is a commonplace that people naturally experience ‘epochs’ in their personal health history. Each epoch is associated with characteristic patterns and rates of health services utilization. Relatively frequent utilization of health care is typical of infancy and young childhood, and the rate of utilization decreases for most young adults. For women of child-bearing age, gynecologic exams and treatments follow distinctive patterns in western countries, as do prenatal visits for uncomplicated pregnancy vs. complicated/high-risk pregnancy.
Elective surgeries and their subsequent follow-ups are another kind of ‘motif.’ The temporal event motifs of chronic conditions like cancer or hepatitis or HIV/AIDS are distinct and different from motifs associated with chronic ambulatory-sensitive conditions such as heart failure, chronic obstructive lung disease, or diabetes. The motifs associated with declining health in the elderly are punctuated by ‘ups-and-downs’, but the epochs' durations and successors are not, in general, as predictable as for the conditions noted for ‘exacerbations-and-remissions’. Through power-spectrum analysis methods, the offset of one epoch and the onset of a new epoch can often be detected from time series, within a span of three or four events, for example.
Turning now to
Example operating environment 100 further includes computer system 120, which may take the form of a server, within premise 130, which is communicatively coupled through firewall 152 and network 175 to health record systems 161, 163, 165 and 167 in premise location 110, and also to linkage manager 140. In embodiments, linkage manager 140 may take the form of a software application operating on one or more mobile computing devices, tablets, smartphones, front-end terminals in communication with back-end computing systems terminals, laptops or other computing devices. In some embodiments, linkage manager 140 includes a web-based application or collection of applications that is usable to manage services provided by embodiments of the invention. In some embodiments, manager 140 comprises a Master Patient Index (MPI) manager and/or a Pseudo-MPI manager application.
Embodiments of computer software stack 125 run on a computer system such as 120 shown in
Turning now to
In some embodiments, computer system 900 is a computing system made up of one or more computing devices. In an embodiment, computer system 900 includes an adaptive multiagent operating system, but it will be appreciated that computer system 900 may also take the form of an adaptive single agent system or a nonagent system. Computer system 900 may be a distributed computing system, a centralized computing system, a single computer such as a desktop or laptop computer, or a networked computing system.
In some embodiments, computer system 900 is a multiagent computer system. A multiagent system may be used to address the issues of distributed intelligence and interaction by providing the capability to design and implement complex applications using formal modeling to solve complex problems and divide and conquer these problem spaces. Whereas object-oriented systems comprise objects communicating with other objects using procedural messaging, agent-oriented systems use agents based on beliefs, capabilities, and choices that communicate via declarative messaging and use abstractions to allow for future adaptations and flexibility. An agent has its own thread of control, which promotes the concept of autonomy. Additional information about the capabilities and functionality of agents and distributed multiagent operating systems, as they relate to these embodiments, is provided in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/250,072, filed on Sep. 30, 2011, which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Turning now to
Next, the current episode or record's date-time coordinates are inserted or appended to the most recent episode for current match-candidate cases. Embodiments of a date-time coordinate, or date-time information, can include date information, time information, or both date and time information. In some embodiments, candidate cases may be limited to patient cases that are determined to be a possible match by comparing other patient data variables, such as patient names, birth dates or age, gender, or similar variables that may be used to determine possible, but not necessarily determinative, matches. The time difference (“delta-t”) between serial encounters is then determined and assembled as a time series. Accordingly in embodiments, each time series represents a time difference between encounters. For example, a single time series vector may comprise 4 elements, each element representing the number of days since the previous health-care visit by a patient who is a match candidate. In some embodiments, the time series is cast as an R datatype, for the R package, as described in connection to packages 126 of
Next, a power spectra for each time series is calculated. The likelihood of the spectra are then determined. In some embodiments, this is facilitated by permuting each spectrum multiple times using Bayesian Chain Monte Carlo simulation, from which a central tendency or median likelihood is determined. In some embodiments, a stable result is determined from performing at least 500 iterations.
In some embodiments, in conjunction or in addition to the above steps, a record linkage scoring weight is also determined by, for example, performing record linkage calculations based on demographic variables such as census-type and slow-moving variables such as age, gender, and race. Further, in some embodiments, F-S methods are used to determine this record-linkage weight.
In embodiments where a record linkage scoring weight is also determined, it is then combined with the power spectrum median weight, by for example RMS calculation or similar method for measuring distances such as, for example, cosine or correlation coefficient. The results of this combination are ranked, and the threshold is used to identify a positive (correct) match, shown as 499 in the example of
Turning back to
At a step 215, for each M blocking variable, N instances are extracted to constitute a candidate matching table, where M and N are integers greater than or equal to zero. More specifically, from the target system, extract those database records containing lexically similar values for the selected blocking variables' values. In some embodiments, this step is facilitated using a hash table to establish the degree of similarity for retrieval.
At a step 220, for each database entity retrieved, extract the date-time coordinates for the episodes that the retrieved records represent; compute interepisode time intervals that separate the records in time; and assemble the intervals as time series associated with each record. In some embodiments, this time series comprises elements representing the time interval between episodes. For example, an example time series might include 5 numbers, each number representing the number of days or hours between episodes. Continuing with step 220, take the date-time coordinate associated with a candidate record to be matched and compute for each retrieved record the time interval that separates the candidate record from date-time stamp of the retrieved entity's most recent record.
Following step 220, steps of method 200 proceed in two paths: steps related to determining Bayesian Power Spectra (“bspec”) weights 230, which include steps 232, 234, 236, and 238, and steps related to determining RecordLinkage weights 240, which include steps 242, 244, and 246. In embodiments, steps included in 230 and 240 occur in parallel or sequentially. In some embodiments, agents of a distributive adaptive agent operating system are dispatched to facilitate handling 230, 240 or both. In some embodiments, agents may invoke other agents, as described above in connection to
Continuing with
At a step 236, median likelihood values determined in step 234 are sorted and ranked. At a step 238, the likelihood values are normalized to form a power spectrum weight (“PS_wt”) for each entity. For example, in some embodiments, the likelihood values are normalized to lie within the range (0,1).
Turning now to the steps for determining RecordLinkage weight 240, at steps 242 and 244, determine record linkage weight for each entity. In some embodiments, perform record linkage calculations on candidate record and the retrieved records, retaining for each a measure of numerical lexical similarity. In some embodiments, this may be facilitated by epiWeight or similar methods to form a record linkage weight (RL_wt) for each entity. In some embodiments, an opensource R recordlinkage software package may be used to facilitate forming a record linkage weight for each entity. In some embodiments, record linkage calculations are based on demographic variables, such as for example, slow-moving variables or census-type variables. At a step 246, candidate matches are sorted and ranked by RL_wt.
At a step 250, power spectrum weights from steps associated with 230 and record linkage weights from steps associated with 240 are combined to form a composite score. In some embodiments, the weights are combined by root-mean-square (RMS), cosine transform, correlation coefficient, or other similar means. In some embodiments, the combined weight is rank-ordered.
In some embodiments median power spectrum likelihood determination from steps associated with 230, such as ascertained by Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation, may be treated as one biomarker or ‘weight’ that measures the similarity of a record associated with the current entity to records from putative matching entities stored in the target database. Likewise, in steps associated with 240, a weight denoting degree of similarity that is calculated by record linkage methods, which may include those using F-S may be considered another biomarker. Furthermore, in some embodiments, where it may be difficult to find single biomarkers that perform with adequate accuracy, panels of biomarkers may be used such that a plurality of marker values is combined. In some embodiments, this is facilitated using linear combinations or decision-tree rule induction.
At a step 260, determine for the entity whether the composite weight score exceeds a threshold. In some embodiments, the threshold is a heuristic threshold. In some embodiments, the use case associated with the record linkage is used to determine the threshold. For example, in an epidemiological use, a lower threshold may be appropriate, but for individual care, where significant harm could result from a mistaken record linkage, a higher threshold may be used. In some embodiments, a health-care provider may set the threshold; the threshold may be set from a table of associated use cases for record linkages; or the threshold may be set based on the determined combined weights, for example, where there is a gap between successive rank-ordered combined weights. In some embodiments, an agent of a multiagent computer system, such as 120 of
At a step 270, entities having a composite score falling below the threshold are rejected as an improbable match that should not be linked with the candidate record. At a step 280, candidates with combined weights falling above the threshold are proposed as likely match candidates that merit consideration for linkage. In some embodiments, provisional linkages are audited before merging; for example, a health-care provider or trained individual might review and confirm patient matches. In some embodiments, linkages may be determined as “pseudo-linkages” or linkages that are identified as probably matches without actually merging the records. These linkages may be used in certain use cases such as, for example, epidemiological studies. In some embodiments, use cases, such as certain epidemiological studies or other use cases, such as for example population research may use persisting pseudo-linkages, which preserve provisional linkages.
Records were randomly selected from a data warehouse, such as Cerner Health Facts®, which is derived from electronic health record (EHR) from 100% of episodes of care that are incident upon more than 130 U.S. based institutions. In this example, personally identifiable information is removed in conformance with U.S. HIPAA law and regulations, and the de-identified data is stored in a separate, secure database. From a total of 50,000 encounters between 1 Jan. 2006 and 1 May 2011, a subset of 13,392 patients were identified who had three or more episodes during this time frame. An unrelated synthetic dataset of 10,000 names and birth dates was obtained.
Application of this embodiment using this data was able to correctly resolve 100% of the true linkages between example candidate records and the merged synthetic dataset, and exhibited 0% false-positive and 0.2% false-negative classifications.
Turning to
In this example embodiment, values v1 through v4 for each row form a time series, with each time series comprising a vector with 4 elements (the values of v1, v2, v3, and v4). From the time series vectors, a Bayesian power spectrum weight (ps_wt) is determined for each entity row, as described above in connection to
In this example, a threshold 320 is set at 0.75, indicating that the first two rows 332 and 334, which have composite scores (column 310) greater than the 0.75 threshold value, are true positive (i.e., correct) linkages. Remaining rows 340 represent the 18 nearest matches, out of the nearly 10,000 record test dataset. In this example embodiment, threshold 320 is determined by specificity and sensitivity. Here, sensitivity is set to 100% and specificity is set to 99.98%. (Entity linkage prevalence is equal to 0.12%.) These values are appropriate for use cases of individual patient care, where significant harm might occur due to a mistaken linkage. For epidemiological (or similar) purposes, specificity might equal 80%, and sensitivity might equal 95%.
Although the invention has been described with reference to the embodiments illustrated in the attached drawing figures, it is noted that substitutions may be made and equivalents employed herein without departing from the scope of the invention as recited in the claims. For example, additional steps may be added and steps omitted without departing from the scope of the invention.
Many different arrangements of the various components depicted, as well as components not shown, are possible without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. Embodiments of the present invention have been described with the intent to be illustrative rather than restrictive. Alternative embodiments will become apparent to those skilled in the art that do not depart from its scope. A skilled artisan may develop alternative means of implementing the aforementioned improvements without departing from the scope of the present invention.
It will be understood that certain features and subcombinations are of utility and may be employed without reference to other features and subcombinations and are contemplated within the scope of the claims. Not all steps listed in the various figures need be carried out in the specific order described. Accordingly, the scope of the invention is intended to be limited only by the claims.
Some embodiments of the present invention include methods and computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon for performing a method of identifying related records in a data store comprised of a plurality of records, the method comprising steps of: retrieving for each record a linkage indicator variable denoting whether the record is associated with one or more records for the individual or the same identity in the database; retrieving date-time information associated with each episode record; identifying blocking variables and using record linkage to create a subset of plausibly related records from the records in the data store; determining a power spectra likelihood weight for each record in the subset; determining a record linkage weight for each record in the subset; determining a composite score by combining the power spectra likelihood weight and record linkage weight; comparing the composite score to a threshold value; and if the composite score is greater than the threshold value, identifying a record as a related record, but if the composite score is less than the threshold, identifying the record as not related.
Some embodiments of the present invention include methods and computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon for performing a method of identifying related records in a data store comprised of a plurality of records, the method comprising steps of: assigning a unique identifier to all records in the database that do not already have a unique identifier, the records arranged in rows and columns; retrieving for each record the linkage indicator variable denoting whether the record is associated with one or more records for the individual or the same identity in the database; retrieving the date-time stamps associated with each episode record; creating a blocking subset by conventional record linkage methods of between 1 and all of the columns in the database; creating a subset (s) consisting of the unique identifiers of records (r) from the database wherein the composite score combining the evidence from a record similarity measure and a power spectrum likelihood measure is greater than or equal to a heuristic value wherein the heuristic value is a positive real number, m; and outputting the unique identifiers of record matches identified by the pair-wise matching algorithm.
In some embodiments, a subset is not utilized, and a power spectra weight and record linkage weight are determined for each record in the record store. In some embodiments, the subset includes records for which episode-information comprising at least 3 visits or date-time entries is present.
Some embodiments further include wherein applying a pair-wise matching algorithm step further comprises matching a candidate record X against records in the database. Some embodiments further include wherein the blocking subset of records has record linkage coefficients or weights computed, according to one of the methods are commonly practiced by those experienced in the art, and the subset (s′) of records whose weights exceed an heuristic value (RL_wt) is derived. Some embodiments further include wherein the most recent date-time coordinate of each record for the plurality of episodes Y in subset s′ is subtracted from the date-time coordinate for the candidate record X to calculate a time difference, and this difference is appended to the time series of Y where the length of each such time series comprises not less than 4 time intervals.
Some embodiments further include wherein the time series comprises time intervals separating the episodes that are associated with the plurality of records are used to calculate a set of frequency-domain power spectra. Some embodiments further include wherein the power spectra are subjected to repeated random permutations of the spectral frequencies, determine a median likelihood for each entity. Some embodiments further include wherein the probabilistic likelihoods for the power spectra are computed by Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling.
Some embodiments further include wherein the set of likelihood values are sorted and rank-ordered, and some of the embodiments further include wherein the ranks of the likelihoods are scaled by arithmetic means such that the scaled values are in the range (0,1) to produce a power spectrum weight (PS_wt) for each record.
Some embodiments further include wherein the record linkage weight and power spectra weight values are combined by a root-mean-square transformation, cosine transformation, or other suitable means of combining multiple numerical indices of similarity or lexical closeness, and the resulting score is associated with each record. Further, some embodiments include wherein the elements of this associated resulting score are sorted in decreasing score order.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/740,751, titled “System and Method For Record Linkage”, filed May 10, 2022, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/793,870, titled “System and Method For Record Linkage”, filed Feb. 18, 2020, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,361,851, issued on Jun. 14, 2022, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/237,206, titled “System and Method For Record Linkage,” filed Dec. 31, 2018, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,580,524, issued on Mar. 3, 2020, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/874,961, titled, “System and Method For Record Linkage,” filed May 1, 2013, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,249,385, issued on Apr. 2, 2019, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/641,097, titled “System And Method For Record Linkage,” filed May 1, 2012, all of which are hereby expressly incorporated by reference in their entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4839853 | Deerwester et al. | Jun 1989 | A |
5243565 | Yamamoto | Sep 1993 | A |
5301109 | Landauer et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5664109 | Johnson et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5809494 | Nguyen | Sep 1998 | A |
5835900 | Fagg, III et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
6039688 | Douglas et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6122628 | Castelli et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6246964 | Blaunstein | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6246975 | Rivonelli et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6247004 | Moukheibir | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6397224 | Zubeldia et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6618715 | Johnson et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6654740 | Tokuda et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6665669 | Han et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6915254 | Heinze et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6996575 | Cox et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7039634 | Xu et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7120626 | Li et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7249117 | Estes | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7386522 | Bigus et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7440947 | Adcock et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7447643 | Olson et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7496561 | Caudill et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7529765 | Brants et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7555425 | Oon | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7558778 | Carus et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7617078 | Rao et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7640171 | Gendron et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7657540 | Bayliss | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7668820 | Zuleba | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7720846 | Bayliss | May 2010 | B1 |
7831423 | Schubert | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7844449 | Lin et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7844566 | Wnek | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7853456 | Soto et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7865373 | Punzak et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7899764 | Martin et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7899796 | Borthwick et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7900052 | Jonas | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7912842 | Bayliss | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7933909 | Trepetin | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7953685 | Liu et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
8015136 | Baker et al. | Sep 2011 | B1 |
8078554 | Fung et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8126736 | Anderson et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8160895 | Schmitt et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8165893 | Goldberg et al. | Apr 2012 | B1 |
8200505 | Walker et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8515777 | Rajasenan | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8539424 | Tetelbaum | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8589424 | Patel et al. | Nov 2013 | B1 |
8666785 | Baluta et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
8838628 | Leighton et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8856156 | McNair et al. | Oct 2014 | B1 |
8930218 | Oakley | Jan 2015 | B1 |
9375142 | Schultz et al. | Jun 2016 | B2 |
9542647 | Mirhaji | Jan 2017 | B1 |
9734146 | McNair et al. | Aug 2017 | B1 |
10249385 | McNair et al. | Apr 2019 | B1 |
10268687 | McNair et al. | Apr 2019 | B1 |
10431336 | Murrish et al. | Oct 2019 | B1 |
10446273 | McNair et al. | Oct 2019 | B1 |
10580524 | McNair et al. | Mar 2020 | B1 |
10628553 | Murrish et al. | Apr 2020 | B1 |
10769241 | McNair | Sep 2020 | B1 |
10854334 | McNair et al. | Dec 2020 | B1 |
10946311 | McNair | Mar 2021 | B1 |
10957449 | McNair et al. | Mar 2021 | B1 |
11100933 | Lefkofsky et al. | Aug 2021 | B2 |
20020007284 | Schurenberg et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020023067 | Garland et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020032583 | Joao | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020035486 | Huyn et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020038227 | Fey et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020038308 | Cappi | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020042793 | Choi | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020073138 | Gilbert et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020128860 | Leveque et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20030023571 | Barnhill | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030038308 | Kim | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046280 | Rotter et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030055679 | Soll et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030163057 | Flick et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030212580 | Shen | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040064438 | Kostoff | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040199332 | Iliff | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040230105 | Geva et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040260666 | Pestotnik et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050027562 | Brown | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050049497 | Krishnan et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050055246 | Simon | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050119534 | Trost et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050144042 | Joffe et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050256740 | Kohan et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050272984 | Huiku | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050288910 | Schlessinger et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060020465 | Cousineau et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060036619 | Fuerst et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060064447 | Malkov | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060074824 | Li | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060129427 | Wennberg | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060161457 | Rapaport et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060173663 | Langheier et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060179050 | Giang | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060205564 | Peterson | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060206027 | Malone | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060206359 | Stang | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060218010 | Michon et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060265253 | Rao et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271556 | Mukherjee et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070005621 | Lesh et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070026365 | Friedrich et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070031873 | Wang et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070094048 | Grichnik | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070106533 | Greene | May 2007 | A1 |
20070106752 | Moore | May 2007 | A1 |
20070233391 | Milstein et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070239482 | Finn et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070244724 | Pendergast et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080021288 | Bowman et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080046292 | Myers et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080097938 | Guyon et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080131374 | Medich et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080133269 | Ching | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080147438 | Kil | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080147441 | Kil | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080172214 | Col et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080172251 | Reichert et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080183454 | Barabasi et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080195422 | Nessinger et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080243548 | Cafer | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080249376 | Zaleski | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080255884 | Carus et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080256006 | Buscema et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080268413 | Leichner | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080275731 | Rao et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080287746 | Reisman | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080288292 | Bi et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080288474 | Chin et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080294692 | Angell et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080301177 | Doherty | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080306926 | Friedlander et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090006431 | Agrawal et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090012928 | Lussier et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090112892 | Cardie et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090125333 | Heywood et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090132284 | Fey et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090164249 | Hunt et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090228303 | Faulkner et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090259493 | Venon et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090299767 | Michon et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090304246 | Walker et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090313041 | Eder | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090318775 | Michelson et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090319295 | Kass-Hout et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100082369 | Prenelus et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100088117 | Belden et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100121883 | Cutting et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100131434 | Magent et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100131438 | Pandya et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100131482 | Linthicum et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100131883 | Linthicum et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100142774 | Ben-Haim et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100145720 | Reiner | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100153133 | Angell et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100179818 | Kelly et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100185685 | Chew et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100198755 | Soll et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100235330 | Reiner | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100274576 | Young | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100293003 | Abbo | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100299155 | Findlay et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100324938 | Ennett et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110010401 | Adams et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110015937 | Janas, III et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110046979 | Tulipano et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110067108 | Hoglund | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110077973 | Breitenstein et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110087501 | Severin | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110093467 | Sharp et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110119089 | Carlisle | May 2011 | A1 |
20110161110 | Mault | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110201900 | Zhang et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110225001 | Shen | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110246238 | Vdovjak et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110270629 | Abbo | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110295621 | Farooq et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110306845 | Osorio | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120016685 | Ryan et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120020536 | Moehrle | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120047105 | Saigal et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120059779 | Syed et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120072235 | Varadarajan et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120078127 | McDonald et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120086963 | Fujitsuka et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120089420 | Hoffman et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120089421 | Hoffman et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120109685 | Carter et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120110016 | Phillips | May 2012 | A1 |
20120173475 | Ash et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120174014 | Ash et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120174018 | Ash et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120175475 | McErlane | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120185275 | Loghmani | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120203575 | Tulipano et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120203576 | Bucur et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120215784 | King et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120232930 | Schmidt et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20130006911 | Christie, IV et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130023434 | Laar | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130031613 | Shanabrook et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130046529 | Grain et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130046558 | Landi et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130080192 | Bucur et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130110547 | Englund et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130110548 | Kutty | May 2013 | A1 |
20130132308 | Boss et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130132312 | Lee et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130132323 | Soto et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130158968 | Ash et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130197938 | Bayouk et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130245389 | Schultz et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20140081652 | Klindworth | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140095184 | Gotz et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140095186 | Gotz et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140180699 | Massa et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140181128 | Riskin et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140200414 | Osorio | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140336539 | Torres et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150049947 | Katsaros et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150161329 | Mabotuwana et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150193583 | McNair et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150254408 | Mahtani et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150324535 | Ash et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150363559 | Jackson et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160004840 | Rust et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160063212 | Monier et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160143594 | Moorman et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20170098358 | Bechtel et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
20170124269 | McNair et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20190336085 | Kayser et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20200335179 | Stojadinovic et al. | Oct 2020 | A1 |
20210177338 | Pagi et al. | Jun 2021 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1043666 | Oct 2000 | EP |
2365456 | Sep 2011 | EP |
2006002465 | Jan 2006 | WO |
2009112977 | Sep 2009 | WO |
2010045463 | Apr 2010 | WO |
2012122122 | Sep 2012 | WO |
2012122195 | Sep 2012 | WO |
2012122196 | Sep 2012 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Abbott et al., “Sequence Analysis and Optimal Matching Methods in Sociology, Review and Prospect”, Sociol Meth Res., vol. 29, 2000, pp. 3-33. |
Abernethy et al., “Eliciting Consumer Preferences Using Robust Adaptive Choice Questionnaires”, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 20, No. 2, Feb. 2008, pp. 145-155. |
Agrawal et al., “Fast Discovery of Association Rules”, Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Menlo Park, AAAI Press, 1996, pp. 307-328. |
Appavoo et al., “Enabling Automomic Behavior in Systems Software with Hot Swapping”, IBM Systems Journal, vol. 42, No. 1, 2003, pp. 60-76. |
Aronson, Alan R., “MetaMap: Mapping Text to the UMLS Metathesaurus”, 2006, 26 pages. |
Arpaia et al., “Multi-Agent Remote Predictive Diagnosis of Dangerous Good Transports”, Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference, Proceedings of the IEEE, May 17-19, 2005, pp. 1685-1690. |
Berchtold et al., “The Mixture Transition Distribution Model for High-Order Markov Chains and Non-Gaussian Time Series”, Statistical Science, vol. 17, No. 3, 2002, pp. 328-356. |
Berry et al., “Care Coordination for Patients with Complex Health Profiles in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings”, Mayo Clinic Proceedings, available online at www.mayclinicproceedings.org., 2013, pp. 1-11. |
Billari et al., “Timing, Sequencing, and Quantum of Life Course Events: A Machine-Learning Approach”, European Journal of Population, vol. 22, 2006, pp. 37-65. |
Cohen et al., “Integrated Complex Care Coordination For Children with Medical Complexity: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Tertiary Care-Community Collaboration”, BMC Health Services Research, vol. 12, No. 366, Oct. 23, 2012, 23 pages. |
Cook et al., “Making Prophecies with Decision Predicates”, ACM 978-14503-0490-0/11/01, Jan. 2011, 14 pages. |
Deville et al., “Correspondence Analysis with an Extension Towards Nominal Time Series”, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 22, 1983, pp. 169-189. |
Dijkstra et al., “Measuring the Agreement Between Sequences”, Sociological Methods and Research, vol. 24, No. 2, Nov. 1995, pp. 214-231. |
Duff, I., “Development and history of sparse direct methods”, SIAM Conference on Applied Linear Algebra, available online at http://www.numerical.rl.ac.uk/people/isd/isd.html, Oct. 26-29, 2009, 44 pages. |
Dvorak et al., “Football injuries and Physical Symptoms: A Review of the Literature”, The American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 28, No. 5, 2000, pp. S3-S9. |
Dvorak et al., “Risk Factor Analysis for Injuries in Football Players: Possibilities for a Prevention Program”, The American Journal of Sport Medicine, vol. 28, No. 5, 2000, pp. S69-S74. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 16/717,299, mailed Oct. 27, 2022, 13 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 16/819,890 mailed on Oct. 27, 2022, 17 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 17/011,474, mailed Oct. 12, 2022, 17 pages. |
First Action Interview Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 16/714,221, mailed on Apr. 4, 2022, 19 pages. |
Han et al., “Frequent Pattern Mining: Current status and future directions”, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 15, 2007, pp. 55-86. |
Hawkins et al., “A Prospective Eidemiological Study of Injuries in Four English Professional Football Clubs”, Br J Sports Med., vol. 33, 1999, 196-203. |
Huyse et al., “Compri—An Instrument to Detect Patients with Complex Care Needs”, Psychosomatics, vol. 42, No. 3, May-Jun. 2001, 7 pages. |
John et al, “Neuro-Fuzzy Clustering of Radiographic Tibia Image Data Using Type 2 Fuzzy Sets”, Information Sciences, vol. 125, issues 1-4, 2000, ISSN 0020-0255, available online at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002002550000009, 2000, pp. 65-82. |
Junge et al., “Soccer Injuries: A Review on Incidence and Prevention”, Sports Med., vol. 34, 2004, pp. 929-938. |
Kang et al., “Mining Based Decision Support Multi-agent System for Personalized e-Healthcare Service”, Proceedings of the 2nd KES International conference on Agent and multi-agent systems: technologies and applications, 2008, pp. 733-742. |
Kiran et al., “An Improved Multiple Minimum Support Based Approach to Mine Rare Association Rules”, Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Data Mining, 2009, 8 pages. |
Mabry et al., “Clinical Decision Support with IM-Agents and ERMA Multi-agents”, Department of Computer Science and Emergency Medicine, 2004, 6 pages. |
Nealon et al., “Agent-Based Applications in Health Care”, Applications of Software Agent Technology in the Health Care Domain, 2003, pp. 1-17. |
Nielsen et al., “Epidemiology and Traumatology of Injuries in Soccer”, Am J Sports Med., vol. 17, 1989, pp. 803-807. |
Non-Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 16/717,299, mailed on Apr. 27, 2022, 10 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 16/819,890, mailed on Apr. 28, 2022. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 14/148,039, dated Jul. 11, 2022, 10 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 17/387,786 mailed Nov. 30, 2022. |
Ohno-Machado, L., “Realizing the full potential of electronic health records: the role of natural language processing”, Journal of American Medical Information Association., vol. 18, No. 5, Sep. 2011, p. 539. |
Othman et al., “Agent Based Preprocessing”, International Conference on Intelligent and Advanced Systems, 2007, pp. 219-223. |
Prados-Suarez et al., “Contextualized Access to Electronic Health Records in Cardiology”, IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, vol. 16, No. 3, doi:10.1109/TITB.2011.2178033., May 2012, pp. 401-412. |
Roever, C., “Package ‘Bayesian Spectral Inference’”, r-project.org, Feb. 21, 2013, pp. 1-27. |
Sariyar et al., “The RecordLinkage Package: Detecting Errors in Data”, The R Journal, vol. 2, No. 2, Dec. 2010, pp. 61-67. |
Seibig et al., “Collection of Annotated Data in a Clinical Validation Study for Alarm Algorithms in Intensive Care—A Methodologic Framework”, Journal of Critical Care, vol. 25, 2010, pp. 128-135. |
Shirabad et al., “Implementating an Integrative Multi-agent Clinical Decision Support System with Open Source Software”, Journal of Medical Systems 36, available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-010-9452-9, 2012, pp. 123-137. |
Ta et al., Data Descriptor: Columbia Open Health Data, Clinical Concept Prevalence and Co-occurence from Electronic Health Records, Scientific data, vol. 5, 180273, doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.273, Nov. 27, 2018, pp. 1-17. |
The Comprehensive R Archive Network, R, Available online at: http://cran.r-project-org, retrieved on Feb. 27, 2020, 1 page. |
Townsend, H., “Natural Language Processing and Clinical Outcomes: The Promise and Progress of NLP for Improved Care”, Journal of AHIMA, vol. 84, No. 2, available online at https://bok.ahima.org/doc?oid=106198#XOSgnSgzY2x, Mar. 2013, 3 pages. |
Uhrmacher et al., “Distributed, Parallel Simulation of Multiple, Deliberative Agents”, Proceedings of the fourteenth workshop on Parallel and distributed simulation, May 2000, pp. 101-108. |
Xue et al., “Fast Query by Example of Environment Sounds via Robust and Efficient Cluster-based Indexing”, 2008, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, available online at doi:10.1109/ICASSP.2008.4517532, 2008, pp. 5-8. |
Zaki, M., “Spade: An Efficient Algorithm for Mining Frequent Sequences”, Machine Learning, vol. 42, 2001, pp. 31-60. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20230386627 A1 | Nov 2023 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61641097 | May 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 17740751 | May 2022 | US |
Child | 18359777 | US | |
Parent | 16793870 | Feb 2020 | US |
Child | 17740751 | US | |
Parent | 16237206 | Dec 2018 | US |
Child | 16793870 | US | |
Parent | 13874961 | May 2013 | US |
Child | 16237206 | US |