↓ Skip to main content

Comparing the Performance of NoSQL Approaches for Managing Archetype-Based Electronic Health Record Data

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing the Performance of NoSQL Approaches for Managing Archetype-Based Electronic Health Record Data
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0150069
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sergio Miranda Freire, Douglas Teodoro, Fang Wei-Kleiner, Erik Sundvall, Daniel Karlsson, Patrick Lambrix

Abstract

This study provides an experimental performance evaluation on population-based queries of NoSQL databases storing archetype-based Electronic Health Record (EHR) data. There are few published studies regarding the performance of persistence mechanisms for systems that use multilevel modelling approaches, especially when the focus is on population-based queries. A healthcare dataset with 4.2 million records stored in a relational database (MySQL) was used to generate XML and JSON documents based on the openEHR reference model. Six datasets with different sizes were created from these documents and imported into three single machine XML databases (BaseX, eXistdb and Berkeley DB XML) and into a distributed NoSQL database system based on the MapReduce approach, Couchbase, deployed in different cluster configurations of 1, 2, 4, 8 and 12 machines. Population-based queries were submitted to those databases and to the original relational database. Database size and query response times are presented. The XML databases were considerably slower and required much more space than Couchbase. Overall, Couchbase had better response times than MySQL, especially for larger datasets. However, Couchbase requires indexing for each differently formulated query and the indexing time increases with the size of the datasets. The performances of the clusters with 2, 4, 8 and 12 nodes were not better than the single node cluster in relation to the query response time, but the indexing time was reduced proportionally to the number of nodes. The tested XML databases had acceptable performance for openEHR-based data in some querying use cases and small datasets, but were generally much slower than Couchbase. Couchbase also outperformed the response times of the relational database, but required more disk space and had a much longer indexing time. Systems like Couchbase are thus interesting research targets for scalable storage and querying of archetype-based EHR data when population-based use cases are of interest.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 24%
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Lecturer 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 21 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 34 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Engineering 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 23 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2020.
All research outputs
#5,604,538
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#68,474
of 194,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,522
of 300,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,699
of 5,439 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,439 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.