Sharing ICU Patient Data Responsibly Under the Society of Critical Care Medicine/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Joint Data Science Collaboration: The Amsterdam University Medical Centers Database (AmsterdamUMCdb) Example.
Journal
Critical care medicine
ISSN: 1530-0293
Titre abrégé: Crit Care Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0355501
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2021
01 06 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
25
2
2021
medline:
16
9
2021
entrez:
24
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Critical care medicine is a natural environment for machine learning approaches to improve outcomes for critically ill patients as admissions to ICUs generate vast amounts of data. However, technical, legal, ethical, and privacy concerns have so far limited the critical care medicine community from making these data readily available. The Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine have identified ICU patient data sharing as one of the priorities under their Joint Data Science Collaboration. To encourage ICUs worldwide to share their patient data responsibly, we now describe the development and release of Amsterdam University Medical Centers Database (AmsterdamUMCdb), the first freely available critical care database in full compliance with privacy laws from both the United States and Europe, as an example of the feasibility of sharing complex critical care data. University hospital ICU. Data from ICU patients admitted between 2003 and 2016. We used a risk-based deidentification strategy to maintain data utility while preserving privacy. In addition, we implemented contractual and governance processes, and a communication strategy. Patient organizations, supporting hospitals, and experts on ethics and privacy audited these processes and the database. AmsterdamUMCdb contains approximately 1 billion clinical data points from 23,106 admissions of 20,109 patients. The privacy audit concluded that reidentification is not reasonably likely, and AmsterdamUMCdb can therefore be considered as anonymous information, both in the context of the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the European General Data Protection Regulation. The ethics audit concluded that responsible data sharing imposes minimal burden, whereas the potential benefit is tremendous. Technical, legal, ethical, and privacy challenges related to responsible data sharing can be addressed using a multidisciplinary approach. A risk-based deidentification strategy, that complies with both U.S. and European privacy regulations, should be the preferred approach to releasing ICU patient data. This supports the shared Society of Critical Care Medicine and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine vision to improve critical care outcomes through scientific inquiry of vast and combined ICU datasets.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33625129
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004916
pii: 00003246-202106000-00016
pmc: PMC8132908
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e563-e577Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Dr. Sijbrands’ institution received funding from European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) Health and Amgen. Drs. Kaplan and Bailey received funding from Society of Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Cecconi received funding from Directed Systems, Edwards Lifesciences, and Cheetah Medical. Dr. Churpek’s institution received funding from an EarlySense research grant; he is supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 (GM123193), and he has a patent pending for risk stratification algorithm for hospitalized patients (money from royalties from the University of Chicago). Dr. Clermont received funding from the NIH, Department of Defense, National Science Foundation, and NOMA AI. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.
Références
Intensive Care Med. 2019 Feb;45(2):246-248
pubmed: 29922844
JAMA. 2018 Apr 3;319(13):1317-1318
pubmed: 29532063
Trials. 2019 Dec 18;20(1):745
pubmed: 31852491
JAMA. 2019 Sep 24;322(12):1141-1142
pubmed: 31397838
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 17;11(2):e0149144
pubmed: 26886098
Int J Med Inform. 2018 Apr;112:82-89
pubmed: 29500026
PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28071
pubmed: 22164229
PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e22656
pubmed: 21826200
Biomed Eng Comput Biol. 2019 Jun 12;10:1179597219856564
pubmed: 31217702
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2015;47(5):457-63
pubmed: 26459228
JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2018 Nov 12;3(5):716-718
pubmed: 30456342
Sci Data. 2016 May 24;3:160035
pubmed: 27219127
Crit Care Med. 2020 Mar;48(3):273-275
pubmed: 32058365
US Statut Large. 1996 Aug 21;110:1936-2103
pubmed: 16477734
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Jun;44(6):703-716
pubmed: 29748717
Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2016 Dec 28;374(2083):
pubmed: 28336803
N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 4;380(14):1347-1358
pubmed: 30943338
Sci Data. 2018 Sep 11;5:180178
pubmed: 30204154
Trials. 2020 Feb 18;21(1):200
pubmed: 32070405
JAMA. 2020 Feb 11;323(6):507-508
pubmed: 31944216
Crit Care. 2019 Aug 22;23(1):284
pubmed: 31439010
BMJ. 2015 Mar 20;350:h1139
pubmed: 25794882
Nat Commun. 2019 Jul 23;10(1):3069
pubmed: 31337762
NPJ Digit Med. 2019 Jan 29;2:2
pubmed: 31304352
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Sep;44(9):1524-1527
pubmed: 29279970
Methods Inf Med. 2016 Aug 5;55(4):347-55
pubmed: 27322502
Front Public Health. 2017 Dec 04;5:327
pubmed: 29270401
Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Jul;7(7):605-612
pubmed: 31122898