System and method for record linkage

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 12062420
  • Patent Number
    12,062,420
  • Date Filed
    Wednesday, July 26, 2023
    a year ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, August 13, 2024
    4 months ago
  • CPC
    • G16H10/60
    • G16H80/00
  • Field of Search
    • US
    • 705 002000
    • 705 003000
    • CPC
    • G06Q10/00
    • G06Q10/60
    • G06Q50/22
    • G06Q50/24
    • G06F19/00
    • G06F19/30
    • G06F19/34
    • G06F19/345
    • G06F19/02
    • G06F19/36
    • G06F16/00
    • G06F16/10
    • G06F16/20
    • G06F16/22
    • G06F16/2228
    • G06F16/2237
    • G06F16/23
    • G06F16/2365
    • G06F16/30
    • G06F16/31
    • G06F16/35
    • G06F16/38
    • G06F16/383
    • G16H10/00
    • G16H10/60
    • G16H15/00
    • G16H50/00
    • G16H50/70
  • International Classifications
    • G16H10/60
    • G16H80/00
    • Disclaimer
      This patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer.
      Term Extension
      0
Abstract
Methods, systems, and computer-readable media are provided for facilitating record matching and entity resolution and for enabling improvements in record linkage. 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.
Description
BACKGROUND

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:

    • (1) Excessive false-negative rates, such as false misses or nonlinkages, associated with spelling errors; fat-fingered entries, such as close-on-keyboard entries or replicated keystrokes; transpositions of digits in identifiers; aliases for first names; variable use of middle-name as first-name; deception/fraud involving use of a false name; transpositions of (first) given name and (last) family name; omissions (e.g., don't know or don't enter first or middle name); mishandling of records, for example records within family related to twins/triplets/octuplets/etc.; transpositions in date fields; invalid or out-of-date values, for example insurer/plan have lapsed and/or are no longer in force; missing and/or anonymous data, for example an entry for John or Jane Doe with a SSN of 999-99-9999; omission of area code or zip code; or other causes. In health care, such false-negatives generally lead to errors of omission: failures to implement the best treatment or other action. However, as in the case of allergy-checking or drug-drug interaction checking, false-negatives may also lead to errors of commission: undertaking a course of treatment that is harmful and that could have been interdicted had the true match been identified.
    • (2) Excessive false-positive rate (i.e., false linkages). False-positive linkage of entities that are not in fact the same person generally leads to errors of commission: undertaking a course of action that would have been beneficial for one of the entities but that is not beneficial for the other entity.
    • (3) Reliance on a higher number of variables to perform matching, which fails to achieve the desired sensitivity and specificity, chiefly because the rate of missingness for the extended-range variables is excessive.


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.


SUMMARY

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.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Embodiments of the invention are described in detail below with reference to the attached drawing figures, wherein:



FIGS. 1A, 1B, and 1C depict aspects of an illustrative operating environment suitable for practicing embodiments of the invention;



FIG. 2 depicts a flow diagram of an embodiment of a method for generating a set of plausible record matches.



FIG. 3 depicts example outputs of an embodiment for resolving an entity.



FIG. 4 depicts an illustrative representation of an embodiment for generating a set of plausible record linkages.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

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 FIG. 1A, an example operating environment 100 suitable for practicing embodiments of the invention is shown. Example operating environment 100 includes a computerized system for compiling and running an embodiment of a decision support recommendation service. With reference to FIG. 1A, a first premise location 110 includes a network behind firewall 150 communicatively coupled to Network 175. Premise location 110, which may comprise separate geographical locations, further includes one or more health record systems such as for example, Hospital Electronic Health Record System 161, Hospital Electronic Health Record System 163, Ambulatory Clinic Electronic Health Record System 165, and Health Information Exchange Electronic Health Record System 167, each communicatively coupled to network 175. In embodiments, Network 175 includes the Internet, a public network, or a private network. Embodiments of health record systems 161, 163, 165, and 167 include one or more data stores of health records and may further include one or more computers or servers that facilitate the storing and retrieval of the health records. Embodiments of health record systems 161, 163, 165, and 167 may further comprise a local or distributed network, which can include network 175, in some embodiments. Firewall 150 may comprise a separate firewall associated with each health record system, in some embodiments. Furthermore, in some embodiments, one or more of the health record systems may be located in the cloud or may be stored in data stores that are distributed across multiple physical locations. In some embodiments, one or more health record systems are communicatively coupled to the cloud, which may include or be communicatively coupled to network 175. In some embodiments, health record systems include record systems that store real-time or near real-time patient information, such as wearable, bedside, or in-home patient monitors, for example.


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 FIGS. 1A and 1B. Embodiments of software stack 125 may run as a distributed system on a virtualization layer within computer system 120. Embodiments of software stack 125 include a distributed adaptive agent operating system 129 that can host a number of services such as 122, 124, 126, and 128. Embodiments of services 122, 124, 126 and 128 run as a local or distributed stack on a collection of personal computers and servers such as 120 and/or a computing device supporting linkage manager 140. In one embodiment, manager 140 operates in conjunction with software stack 125. In embodiments, variables mapping service 122 and records/documents ETL service 124 provide services that facilitate retrieving frequent item sets, extracting database records, and cleaning the values of variables in records. Software packages 126 perform statistical software operations, and include statistical calculation packages such as, in one embodiment, the R system and R-system modules, and packages such as RecordLinkage and bspec for facilitating calculation of Bayesian power spectra or related statistical analyses for time series data. An example embodiment employing software packages 126 is described in connection to FIG. 2, wherein a RecordLinkage package is associated with the steps at 240 and bspec is associated with steps at 230. Software packages 126 are associated with some embodiments of services 128. Embodiments of services 128 can include Apache Hadoop and Hbase framework that provide a distributed file system.



FIG. 1B illustratively depicts another aspect of an example operating environment. Some of the components of FIG. 1B are described above with respect to FIG. 1A. Also shown in FIG. 1B is data store 121, which in some embodiments includes patient data and information for multiple patients; variables associated with recommendations; recommendation knowledge base; recommendation rules; recommendations; recommendation update statistics; operational data store, which stores events; frequent itemsets (such as “X often happens with Y,” for example) and itemsets index information; association rulebases, agent libraries, and other information, patient-derived data, and health-care provider information, for example. Although depicted as a single data store, data store 121 may comprise more than one data store one or multiple locations, or in the cloud. The example operating environment of FIG. 1B also includes a firewall 132 between manager 140 and computer system 120.


Turning now to FIG. 1C, there is shown one example of an embodiment of computer system 900 that has software instructions for storage of data and programs in computer readable media. Computer system 900 is representative of a system architecture that could be used for computer systems such as 120 and the computer device(s) operating manager 140. One or more CPU's such as 901 have internal memory for storage and couple to the north bridge device 902, allowing CPU 901 to store instructions and data elements in system memory 915, or memory associated with graphics card 910, which is coupled to display 911. Bios flash ROM 940 couples to north bridge device 902. South bridge device 903 connects to north bridge device 902 allowing CPU 901 to store instructions and data elements in disk storage 931 such as a fixed disk or USB disk, or to make use of network 933 for remote storage. User I/O device 932, such as a communication device, a mouse, a touch screen, a joystick, a touch stick, a trackball, or keyboard, couples to CPU through south bridge 903 as well.


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 FIG. 4, an illustrative representation of an embodiment for generating a set of plausible record linkages is depicted, and generally referred to herein as 400. In the embodiment illustratively depicted in 400, patient data concerning “epochs” (e.g., sets of three- or four-visit episodes of patient care associated with characteristic patterns or rates of health service utilization) or other available sets of information about patient care episodes is accessed. Bars 420, 440, 460, and 480 represent serial episodes for four separate candidate cases for matching. For each candidate match, recent encounters and date-time coordinates of each encounter are accessed or determined, from available health records, and sorted in chronological order. It cannot be assumed, that at any given moment, each available health record system necessarily has received all of the updates concerning a patient in a timely or synchronous way. Some data about a patient may have been entered later in time, or not entered in a chronological order. For example, a health information exchange system in a particular state may have data about a patient that slowly trickles in due to administrative burdens for entering patient data. Thus, embodiments contemplate and account for the possibility that certain pieces of patient data may be leading or lagging each other in time.


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 FIGS. 1A and 1B.


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 FIG. 4. In embodiments, this threshold may be set based on the specific purpose of use. For example, a higher threshold may be in order in individual care scenario where significant harm would result from an improper match. Similarly, lower thresholds may be set for scenarios unlikely to result in significant harm to a patient, such as epidemiological purposes.


Turning back to FIG. 2, a flow diagram is provided, which depicts an embodiment of a method for generating a set of plausible record matches, and which is generally referred to herein as 200. At a step 205, bind the current entity of interest. In embodiments, the entity of interest represents the record of a person or object for which candidate matches are sought. In some embodiments, method 200 may be used for matching objects, items, or data sets rather than people, such as, inventoried equipment matching, matching objects associated with data entries, or data sets such as certain patterns of transactions, travel, or behavior. At a step 210, index hash values are calculated for blocking variables. Blocking variables can include variables such as birthday, birth month, birth year, or may also include variables in a specific context, such as whether the patient is a kidney patient, whether the patient is on dialysis, has or had prostate cancer, or is diabetic, for example. In some embodiments, blocking variables may be used to determine how data sets are retrieved, when dealing with large-demographic data sets. Continuing with step 210, a plurality of independent demographic variables that are present in both a reference system and a target system associated with each entity, are selected to be used as blocking variables.


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 FIG. 1C. For example, a bspec agent might facilitate steps 232-238, and might invoke a second agent for the Bayesian power spectra calculations of step 234, and a third agent for the sorting and ranking in step 236.


Continuing with FIG. 2, at a step 232, append the time interval as determined in step 220 to the time series for each retrieved entity. In some embodiments, the time series is cast as an R datatype, such as for example “.ts,” for the R package, as described above in connection to packages 126 of FIGS. 1A and 1B. At a step 234, determine the power spectra for each time series from step 232. In some embodiments, the power spectra may be calculated on only a portion of the time series from step 232. For example, in embodiments, certain time series may be excluded based on the values of the elements, such as elements representing zero days between episodes, or negative or unusually high values, which might represent an error. Continuing with step 234, calculate the likelihood (probability) of each determined spectrum. In some embodiments, the likelihood of each spectrum is determined by iteratively permuting the spectrum and sampling the resulting permutations by Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. In some embodiments, this simulation is performed for at least 500 iterations, retaining the median likelihood for each entity, to obtain a stable result.


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 FIGS. 1A and 1, is used to set the threshold.


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.



FIG. 3 provides an example output of an embodiment for resolving an entity and determining provisional linkage. In the example embodiment used in connection to FIG. 3, an entity resolver subsystem was reduced to practice using a server cluster running the Linux operating system, the open-source statistical software package R, and R modules bspec and RecordLinkage.


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 FIG. 3, table 300 shows rows, including row 332, row 334, and rows 340 of candidate matches. Column variables 303 and 305 were supplied by the data warehouse. Variables 303 include patient-name related information and birth year (by), birth month (bm), and birthday (bd). Variables 305 (columns v1 through v4) are days between visits, where a candidate patient or entity that may be linked with a reference record is shown in each row. In other words, if a current patient named “Michael Meyer” is visiting today and is to be linked with the MICHAEL MEYER record shown in the first row 332, then today's date (for visit #4) would be 187 days subsequent to the previous (v3) visit for that individual, which in turn was 168 days subsequent to the immediately prior visit (v2), and so on. Similarly, from today's date, it has been 60 days since Michael Myer (no “e”) was last seen, as shown column v4 of row 334. In this example, the first row might represent regular doctor checkups or routine visits, since the days are spread apart. The second row might represent a treatment because the time interval between visits is smaller.


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 FIG. 2 and shown in column 309. Similarly, for each entity, a record linkage weight (rl_wt), shown in column 307, is determined for each row. Column 310 shows a combined composite weight of the rl_wt and ps_wt. In this example embodiment, RMS is used to determine the composite weight or score. Furthermore, here the scores are normalized to (0,1).


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.

Claims
  • 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a target record from a first record system, the target record comprising one or more first date-time variables associated with a target patient, wherein each of the one or more first date-time variables identifies a date and/or time;receiving a candidate record from a second record system, the candidate record comprising a second date-time variable for an episode associated with the target patient, wherein the second date-time variable identifies a date and/or time;generating an interim record that aggregates the first date-time variables with the second date-time-variable;generating a power spectrum based on the interim record;predicting, based on at least one demographic characteristic of a subject, a record linkage weight based on a similarity of a demographic variable associated with the candidate record and the target record;determining, based on the record linkage weight and the power spectrum, that the candidate record is related to the target record; andstoring an indication that the candidate record is to be linked to the target record.
  • 2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a power spectra weight based on a characteristic of the power spectrum and a corresponding reference characteristic generated using a set of reference power spectra, wherein determining that the candidate record is related to the target record is based on the record linkage weight and the power spectra weight.
  • 3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: determining a composite weight of the record linkage weight and the power spectra weight, wherein determining that the candidate record is related to the target record comprises determining that the composite weight satisfies a threshold.
  • 4. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein determining the power spectra weight comprises: determining a likelihood value of each spectrum of the set of reference power spectra; andnormalizing the determined likelihood values.
  • 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the set of reference power spectra are generated using a Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation.
  • 6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second date-time variable comprises a date-time value associated with a most recent episode stored in association with the candidate record.
  • 7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first and second record systems comprise the same record system.
  • 8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: presenting, via an interface, an indication that the candidate record is related to the target record.
  • 9. A system comprising: one or more data processors; anda non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing instructions which, when executed on the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform a set of actions including: receiving a target record from a first record system, the target record comprising one or more first date-time variables associated with a target patient, wherein each of the one or more first date-time variables identifies a date and/or time;receiving a candidate record from a second record system, the candidate record comprising a second date-time variable for an episode associated with the target patient, wherein the second date-time variable identifies a date and/or time;generating an interim record that aggregates the first date-time variables with the second date-time-variable;generating a power spectrum based on the interim record;predicting, based on at least one demographic characteristic of a subject, a record linkage weight based on a similarity of a demographic variable associated with the candidate record and the target record;determining, based on the record linkage weight and the power spectrum, that the candidate record is related to the target record; andstoring an indication that the candidate record is to be linked to the target record.
  • 10. The system of claim 9, wherein the set of actions further includes: determining a power spectra weight based on a characteristic of the power spectrum and a corresponding reference characteristic generated using a set of reference power spectra, wherein determining that the candidate record is related to the target record is based on the record linkage weight and the power spectra weight.
  • 11. The system of claim 10, wherein the set of actions further includes: determining a composite weight of the record linkage weight and the power spectra weight, wherein determining that the candidate record is related to the target record comprises determining that the composite weight satisfies a threshold.
  • 12. The system of claim 10, wherein determining the power spectra weight comprises: determining a likelihood value of each spectrum of the set of reference power spectra; andnormalizing the determined likelihood values.
  • 13. The system of claim 10, wherein the set of reference power spectra are generated by sampling permutations of the power spectrum.
  • 14. The system of claim 9, wherein the second date-time variable comprises a date-time value associated with a most recent episode stored in association with the candidate record.
  • 15. The system of claim 9, wherein the first and second record systems comprise the same record system.
  • 16. The system of claim 9, wherein the set of actions further includes: presenting, via an interface, an indication that the candidate record is related to the target record.
  • 17. A computer-program product tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, including instructions configured to cause one or more data processors to perform a set of actions including: receiving a target record from a first record system, the target record comprising one or more first date-time variables associated with a target patient, wherein each of the one or more first date-time variables identifies a date and/or time;receiving a candidate record from a second record system, the candidate record comprising a second date-time variable for an episode associated with the target patient, wherein the second date-time variable identifies a date and/or time;generating an interim record that aggregates the first date-time variables with the second date-time-variable;generating a power spectrum based on the interim record;predicting, based on at least one demographic characteristic of a subject, a record linkage weight based on a similarity of a demographic variable associated with the candidate record and the target record;determining, based on the record linkage weight and the power spectrum, that the candidate record is related to the target record; andstoring an indication that the candidate record is to be linked to the target record.
  • 18. The computer-program product of claim 17, wherein the set of actions further includes: determining a power spectra weight based on a characteristic of the power spectrum and a corresponding reference characteristic generated using a set of reference power spectra, wherein determining that the candidate record is related to the target record is based on the record linkage weight and the power spectra weight.
  • 19. The computer-program product of claim 18, wherein the set of actions further includes: determining a composite weight of the record linkage weight and the power spectra weight, wherein determining that the candidate record is related to the target record comprises determining that the composite weight satisfies a threshold.
  • 20. The computer-program product of claim 18, wherein determining the power spectra weight comprises: determining a likelihood value of each spectrum of the set of reference power spectra; andnormalizing the determined likelihood values.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

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.

US Referenced Citations (244)
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
Foreign Referenced Citations (8)
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
Non-Patent Literature Citations (47)
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.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20230386627 A1 Nov 2023 US
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
61641097 May 2012 US
Continuations (4)
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