Design and Technical Evaluation of a Standards-Based System That Delivers Enclave-Derived Case-Finding Models to Patients and Clinicians

Other preprint OA: closed CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-10-25 ⓘ

Researchers developed a standards-based system to deliver case-finding models for endometriosis and other conditions from enclave summary counts via FHIR interfaces, demonstrating reproducible scoring on synthetic records.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-10-25 · read from full text ⓘ

The authors designed and evaluated a technical system that fits case-finding models using released summary counts from the All of Us Research Program enclave, allowing these models to be delivered via standard health information technology interfaces. They developed versioned models for several conditions, including endometriosis, Lyme disease, and depression, which were scored using JavaScript implementations compatible with SMART on FHIR and CDS Hooks standards. The study demonstrated that the system could reproduce reference outputs exactly on synthetic records, although it noted limitations regarding real-record interoperability and prospective clinical performance. Relevance to endometriosis: listed as one of the nine self-report models fitted in the study, though the paper's primary focus is on the technical architecture for delivering such models rather than clinical outcomes for the condition itself.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Background: Research data enclaves such as the All of Us Research Program do not allow participant-level data, or models fitted to them, to leave, which makes it hard to deliver case-finding models, which flag patients with possibly uncoded conditions for clinician review, to patients and clinicians. Objectives. We describe and technically evaluate a system that fits models outside an enclave from released summary counts and delivers them through standard health information technology interfaces. Methods. We exported dissemination-compliant summary counts from the All of Us Researcher Workbench and, outside the enclave, fitted versioned models for Long COVID, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, endometriosis, Lyme disease, lupus, migraine, depression, and anxiety. A model contract (a model file and a written specification), a Python reference implementation, and synthetic Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) test patients define the expected outputs. One JavaScript scorer runs in a patient demonstration, a SMART on FHIR clinician application, and a CDS Hooks service. An atlas displays aggregate results. We evaluated the system on synthetic records with automated tests, cross-implementation output comparison, launches through the public SMART sandbox, and a counterexample review of the scoring and display rules. Results. The deployed Long COVID model had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.67 in a random validation split. The eight self-report models reached 0.61 to 0.82 in identifying self-reporters without a code. The JavaScript scorer reproduced all 162 reference outputs exactly, and all 437 automated tests passed. A counterexample review found 5 classes of failure, including scoring ineligible patients and treating unavailable data as absent, all fixed and added as tests. Conclusions. Models fitted from released summary counts can be delivered through FHIR, SMART on FHIR, and CDS Hooks with reproducible scoring on synthetic records. Real-record interoperability, usability, and prospective clinical performance remain to be evaluated.
Full text 4,291 characters · extracted from oa-html · 5 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Background Research data enclaves such as the All of Us Research Program do not allow participant-level data, or models fitted to them, to leave, which makes it hard to deliver case-finding models, which flag patients with possibly uncoded conditions for clinician review, to patients and clinicians.

Objectives

We describe and technically evaluate a system that fits models outside an enclave from released summary counts and delivers them through standard health information technology interfaces.

Methods

We exported dissemination-compliant summary counts from the All of Us Researcher Workbench and, outside the enclave, fitted versioned models for Long COVID, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, endometriosis, Lyme disease, lupus, migraine, depression, and anxiety. A model contract (a model file and a written specification), a Python reference implementation, and synthetic Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) test patients define the expected outputs. One JavaScript scorer runs in a patient demonstration, a SMART on FHIR clinician application, and a CDS Hooks service. An atlas displays aggregate results. We evaluated the system on synthetic records with automated tests, cross-implementation output comparison, launches through the public SMART sandbox, and a counterexample review of the scoring and display rules.

Results

The deployed Long COVID model had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.67 in a random validation split. The eight self-report models reached 0.61 to 0.82 in identifying self-reporters without a code. The JavaScript scorer reproduced all 162 reference outputs exactly, and all 437 automated tests passed. A counterexample review found 5 classes of failure, including scoring ineligible patients and treating unavailable data as absent, all fixed and added as tests.

Conclusions

Models fitted from released summary counts can be delivered through FHIR, SMART on FHIR, and CDS Hooks with reproducible scoring on synthetic records. Real-record interoperability, usability, and prospective clinical performance remain to be evaluated. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: All of Us Research Program, National Institutes of Health: participants provide informed consent under the program protocol approved by the All of Us Institutional Review Board. We analyzed de-identified data from the All of Us Registered Tier Dataset v9 as authorized researchers on the All of Us Researcher Workbench (https://www.researchallofus.org). The system evaluation used synthetic patients only. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Data Availability All of Us Registered Tier Dataset v9 is available to authorized researchers through the All of Us Researcher Workbench. The source code, model files, test vectors, released aggregate counts, and the scripts that refit the models and rerun the automated checks are available at https://github.com/AsiaeeLab/unom-system. A live demonstration with synthetic patients is at https://undiagnosednomore.org.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-html ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-11-07T06:36:24.232959+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-10-23T06:24:35.503409+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0