{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02426928352854279, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009760472723435686, 'mean_word_length': 5.421070460704607, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Development of a standards‐based phenotype model for gross motor function to support learning health systems in pediatric rehabilitation

Abstract Introduction Research and continuous quality improvement in pediatric rehabilitation settings require standardized data and a systematic approach to use these data. Methods We systematically examined pediatric data concepts from a pediatric learning network to determine capacity for capturing gross motor function (GMF) for children with Cerebral Palsy (CP) as a demonstration for enabling infrastructure for research and quality improvement activities of an LHS. We used an iterative approach to construct phenotype models of GMF from standardized data element concepts based on case definitions from the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS). Data concepts were selected using a theory and expert‐informed process and resulted in the construction of four phenotype models of GMF: an overall model and three classes corresponding to deviations in GMF for CP populations. Results Sixty five data element concepts were identified for the overall GMF phenotype model. The 65 data elements correspond to 20 variables and logic statements that instantiate membership into one of three clinically meaningful classes of GMF. Data element concepts and variables are organized into five domains relevant to modeling GMF: Neurologic Function, Mobility Performance, Activity Performance, Motor Performance, and Device Use. Conclusion Our experience provides an approach for organizations to leverage existing data for care improvement and research in other conditions. This is the first consensus‐based and theory‐driven specification of data elements and logic to support identification and labeling of GMF in patients for measuring improvements in care or the impact of new treatments. More research is needed to validate this phenotype model and the extent that these data differentiate between classes of GMF to support various LHS activities.


| BACKGROUND
The re-purposing of patient health data collected during routine patient care from the electronic health record (EHR) is more common over the past decade and can advance and support the formulation of real-world knowledge, a key area of Learning Health Systems (LHS). [1][2][3] Pediatric rehabilitation relies on EHR data to support clinical decisionmaking of the interprofessional care team as well as LHS research and learning efforts to improve care delivery for patients with physical disability and deviations in functional performance. However, there is a paucity of systematic approaches to leverage EHR data in pediatric rehabilitation. Recent strategic plans by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) emphasize building better rehabilitation research and learning infrastructure. 4, 5 The re-use of EHR data to characterize the range of patient functional performance through conceptual and digital phenotyping can support the evaluation of new and existing rehabilitative treatments and is of great value in rehabilitation settings. LHS infrastructure is designed to meet such needs across a broad range of health settings. However, in pediatric Cerebral Palsy (CP), there is no existing application, or systematic approach, for using EHR data to model complexity and deviations in physical functioning to support patient cohort identification.
Currently, few reports in the literature use analytic methods to "phenotype" patient cohorts in pediatric rehabilitation research, and only limited studies exist that develop or use typologies such as "phenotype models" from health data to characterize patient function in other settings. [6][7][8][9] A phenotype model contrasts a computable phenotype or phenotype algorithm, which are traditionally designed from EHR data elements and values and have computable rules dictated by patient data. Although a model is an informative representation of a system or person, a phenotype model is an informative representation of important and relevant data concepts that exist in an EHR. Fried et al 6 describe a phenotype model in the context of frailty as a group of patient characteristics that, if present together, may represent a patient's level of frailty. Their model included variables for ambulation quality, reduced strength, unintentional weight loss, and reduced activity tolerance that were collected on patients aged 65 years or older in an observational cohort study. 6,10 Others have recently used the frailty phenotype model for a variety of applications, such as to support the construction of a frailty index based on the accumulation of deficits documented in an EHR to evaluate the extent of frailty in geriatric inpatients. [6][7][8][9] However, the absence of literature on phenotyping in rehabilitation research makes designing phenotype algorithms difficult because of the complexity of physical functioning.
Hence, a phenotype model for functional performance is a critical infrastructure for LHSs in pediatric rehabilitation. Phenotyping approaches, such as Mo et al's desiderata for computable phenotyping using EHR data 11 and others, [12][13][14][15] can be adapted to develop phenotype models of physical functioning from EHR data sources.
In the present study, a phenotype model structures key data concepts and value sets available in an EHR to characterize theoretical patient cohorts by deviations in functional performance, irrespective of the EHR data values. Analytical strategies, including phenotyping algorithms, to improve the identification of cohorts related to physical function would be a great benefit to research, quality improvement, and clinical practice in pediatric rehabilitation settings. Therefore, our work in developing a phenotype model of gross motor function (GMF) built on EHR data standards and architectures is more exploratory and conceptual and serves as a foundation for future phenotyping algorithms to define functional classes broadly from existing data sources.  I, II, III, IV, V) and a standard screening tool used to classify deviations in the performance of GMF activities for children with CP. 16,17 Palisano et al 17 illustrates these deviations and includes corresponding definitions.
These deviations are frequently used in hip surveillance programs that focus on monitoring children with CP who may develop a hip dysplasia and subsequent displacement and dislocation. [18][19][20][21][22][23] However, the GMFCS is not always documented as a discrete data element in the EHR. Rather, it is often embedded in free-text and dictated clinical notes using variations in terminologies, making EHR-driven and automated cohort identification by functional performance levels more difficult.
GMFCS levels describe performance and participation rather than CP-related physical impairment and body region involved (spastic hemiplegia, diplegia, tetraplegia, and quadriplegia). 18 The GMFCS level definitions illustrate current functional status and have predictive value for a child's future functioning level with CP. 16,17,24,25 On one end, patients at GMFCS I are independent in all mobility activities and can run, jump, and play without physical limitations, and do not require the use of external devices. On the other end, patients at GMFCS V require total physical assistance to perform all activities, are unable to propel their own wheelchair, and require a manual wheelchair that is propelled by family or caregiver. The GMFCS is also divided into age-ranges that reflect age-related gross motor development and mobility skills (birth-2, 2-4, 4-6, 6-12, and 12-18). These age-range specific GMFCSs address similar underlying concepts in each case definition but are modified to reflect age-appropriate activities. Although GMFCS level is considered stable after 2 years old, 16,17,25 children generally achieve major gross motor developmental milestones by age 5.

| Pediatric learning networks
In the past decade, federal funding and non-profit organizations supported establishing LHS in pediatrics by developing several national clinical data research networks. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] PEDSnet, a Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded effort, is one example of a general pediatric care learning network being used to support LHS activities. 29,30 The Shriners Hospitals for Children (SHC) Health Outcomes Network (SHOnet) is another learning network, one that is specific to the SHC system. 35 SHOnet is the exemplary learning network for this use-case and adapts the existing pediatric-specific common data model (CDM) for PEDSnet built based on the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) structure. 29,30,36,37 SHOnet harmonizes EHR data elements across 20 pediatric specialty hospitals in the SHC System. In addition to the OMOP concepts mapped in PEDSnet, the SHOnet CDM includes extensive mappings to EHR data elements for PT and OT observational discrete data elements. All SHOnet data elements for observational data and medications are stored as OMOP and RxNorm concept codes, respectively. This data infrastructure allows SHOnet to address many important treatment and research questions. In terms of the GMFCS values in SHOnet, due to EHR documentation practices at the clinician level, the GMFCS as a discrete data element has low completeness. 35 The development of a phenotype model of GMF would build capacity to address questions related to functional outcomes stratified by functional performance levels.

| STUDY OBJECTIVES
The overall aim of this study was to develop a methodology to build conceptual classification models of functional performance phenotypes from EHR data concepts in pediatric learning networks. Objective 1 of this aim was to construct a phenotype model of GMF using a theory and expert-informed approach based on SHOnet CDM discrete data element concepts and using existing case definitions for each GMFCS level as gold-standard phenotype definitions. Objective 2 of this aim was to define three clinically meaningful classes of GMF that were derived from an expert-panel review of a set of data element concepts and corresponding value sets available in a pediatric EHR.

| Procedure
The use of functional performance data elements to build patient cohorts for research or quality improvement is challenging because different clinicians observe and record physical functioning differently and this is not captured discretely or consistently by providers. Functional status can also represent a challenge because of the range of states (high functioning to low functioning), and it manifests differently in different patients. For this research, we designed a stepped and iterative process based on consensus expert review 38 and adapted several methodologies [11][12][13][14][15] to develop a phenotype model and corresponding subgroups, or classes, of GMF that uses theoretical data concepts from the SHOnet CDM. Figure 1 provides a flow diagram of our procedure to develop the GMF phenotype model (GMFPM).
Given this initial effort in what may be a more difficult classification, function across multiple subgroups rather than presence or absence of a condition on binary terms, for this study, the GMFCS was collapsed from five levels into three distinct classes of GMF. The three classes are largely consistent with major functioning levels: GMF Phenotype Class 1 includes GMFCS I and II, those who ambulate without assistive devices; GMF Phenotype Class 2 corresponds to GMFCS III, those individuals who use assistive devices including wheelchairs; GMF Phenotype Class 3 includes GMFCS IV and V, those individuals who have significant ambulatory limitations. Furthermore, all phenotype models in this study corresponded to patients aged 6-18 years old because this is the largest age-band of the GMFCS that overlaps with the school setting and clinical practice (eg, hip surveillance) guidelines and 6-18-year-olds are expected to have stable GMFCS levels. The construction of the GMFPM and classes proceeded through four phases. As this model is foundational and is not a computable phenotype using real patient data, the validation of such a model is beyond the scope of this paper. In Phase 2, the final set of data element concepts were consolidated into 31 unique and derived variables for use in the expert-panel review exercise to assign and rate variables. A unique variable corresponds to one data element concept. A derived variable corresponds to many data element concepts that could be collapsed into one variable due to similarity in concept and value set. This also simplified the expert-review process. For example, multiple data element concepts correspond to different types of assistive devices a patient may use with the same yes/no value set, so the concepts were combined to form the derived variable "Assistive Devices Used." This contrasts the "Ambulation Level" variable, which is a single data element concept that maintains a standard 6-level value set spanning "Independent" to

| RESULTS
The overall GMFPM and three GMF classes included 20 variables that correspond to 65 performance-related data elements that were identified by the expert panel. Table 1 provides a list of the 20 variables and 65 data elements and value sets in the overall phenotype model. Each GMF class comprised human readable logic statements and rules for each variable to instantiate membership to that respective GMF class. As an exemplar, Table 2 provides a matrix view of the Activity Performance domain and includes rules, variables, data element concepts, and value sets stratified by each GMF class. Figure 5 includes an example logic statement for the "Ambulation Level" variable to differentiate between GMF classes. The structured rules and logic statements for variables in each GMF class are included as Data S1. These statements include OMOP custom concept codes for data elements and value sets to encourage generalizability with other pediatric health system data warehouses, networks, and registries built using OMOP. The compilation of the structured rules provides an opportunity to study more granular deviations in physical functioning between GMFCS levels.

| Analysis of conformance
The analysis of conformance revealed inconsistencies for two variables. The first variable was "General Lower Extremity Muscle Tone".
Although panelists perceived that this variable moderately differentiated (≥3) between GMF classes, the panelists all assigned the same performance value to each GMF class. Due to the inconsistency, this variable was not included in the overall model. This may have occurred due to the decreased granularity in the value set for this variable. Fortunately, the panel also selected two other lower extremity derived variables that were joint-specific and had more granular value F I G U R E 3 Example from EX2: Process for rating (on 5-level scale) how well each variable differentiates between GMF classes sets: "Knee Tone" and "Ankle Tone." These variables included both flexor and extensor tone data elements and are scored using the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). The MAS is a standardized 6-level ordinal scale (ie, 0, 1, +1, 2, 3, 4) of muscle tone and better deviates between GMF classes compared to variables for presence of general tone with yes/no value sets.
The second inconsistency occurred for the variable "Elbow Tone." On the 5-level rating of differentiation between GMF classes, two panelists rated "Elbow Tone" ≤2, one panelist declined to rate the variable, and another rated the variable a 3. The overall performance values applied to "Elbow Tone" using the MAS followed a clear grada- clinicians and systems to classify clinically sensible classes of GMF.
Moreover, the iterative approach we used demonstrates the utility of stretching existing methodologies into developing "functional" phenotypes for pediatric rehabilitation.
This expert-informed GMFPM may support future predictive analytics of GMFCS for research; however, this study has strengths and limitations. The primary limitation of this study is its generalizability.
Since SHC is a specialty pediatric healthcare system, the documentation of many of these data elements and their inclusion in SHOnet may be different from other systems. Other pediatric healthcare systems that manage general pediatric disorders may not prioritize, document, or have fields in the EHR for many of the data elements in the phenotype model.
In terms of strengths, our study devised and applied a foundational methodological approach to phenotyping that could very easily be adapted to any other use cases, particularly in the field of medical rehabilitation. Evidence demonstrates that the re-use of EHR data improves patient cohort identification and may be essential to support pragmatic prospective cohort studies with the economy of scale. [6][7][8][9][41][42][43][44] However, the discrepancy between derived definitions and the performance and use of phenotypes in practice points to a need to improve the identification and agreement of clinical characteristics in EHR-based phenotypes. 41 The methodological approach and use of data concepts from a CDM described in this study helps fill this gap. A significant strength of the study was that it used data element concepts based on a standardized terminology of medical concepts (ie, OMOP). OMOP includes widely accepted reference terminology standards and publicly available concept codes which further supports opportunities for generalized use. Another strength of this study was the investigator blinding to completeness or availability of patient EHR data in the initial review and selection process because this knowledge could have biased the theory-based selection of data element concepts. Lastly, panelists all worked at three regionally different SHCs; therefore, the regional variation and priorities in practice may mitigate potential biases in their ratings.
The GMFPM, although not operational in an EHR, builds infrastructure from a CDM to identify pediatric patient cohorts by distinct categories of GMF for research and quality improvement. Our findings can also inform other multi-site research and learning networks that support pediatric populations (ie, PEDSnet, ImproveCareNow) of the opportunities afforded by building out their data elements for measurement infrastructure to conduct critical LHS research in rehabilitation. Future work should analyze data quality dimensions of the phenotype model, the extent that the typologies can validly differentiate between GMF classes, and its utility in applications such as CP hip surveillance efforts. More use-cases of phenotypes for characterizing functional performance and care processes are needed to build a computable measurement library with economy of scale and scope for pediatric rehabilitation.