Introduction: The aim of this study is to use observational methods to evaluate reliability of evidence generated by a study of the effect of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) on chronic lower respiratory disease (CLRD) outcomes among Type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.
Research Design And Methods: We independently reproduced a study comparing effects of GLP-1RA versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-i) on CLRD outcomes among patients with T2DM and prior CLRD. We reproduced inputs and outputs using the original study data (national administrative claims) and evaluated the robustness of results in comparison to alternate design/analysis decisions.
Objective: Propose a framework to empirically evaluate and report validity of findings from observational studies using pre-specified objective diagnostics, increasing trust in real-world evidence (RWE).
Materials And Methods: The framework employs objective diagnostic measures to assess the appropriateness of study designs, analytic assumptions, and threats to validity in generating reliable evidence addressing causal questions. Diagnostic evaluations should be interpreted before the unblinding of study results or, alternatively, only unblind results from analyses that pass pre-specified thresholds.
Using administrative claims and electronic health records for observational studies is common but challenging due to data limitations. Researchers rely on phenotype algorithms, requiring labor-intensive chart reviews for validation. This study investigates whether case adjudication using the previously introduced Knowledge-Enhanced Electronic Profile Review (KEEPER) system with large language models (LLMs) is feasible and could serve as a viable alternative to manual chart review.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF