This paper provides guidelines in the judicious use of EAV design, going beyond simply describing principles, and exploring in depth the infrastructure that must accompany production EAV systems. One therefore needs to understand where this compromise can yield net benefit and the circumstances where it cannot. In this case, efficiencies in some aspects are traded off for inefficiencies in others. Like any computational approach, EAV design embodies a trade-off. The use of EAV/CR is relatively less widespread, and the decision process that determines its appropriate use has not been described previously. The use of EAV design for non-clinical applications is embodied by the EAV with classes and relationships (EAV/CR) approach, as in Yale's SenseLab system. Clinical Study Data Management Systems (CSDMS) that utilize an EAV design include the commercial Phase Forward and Oracle Clinical systems and the open-source TrialDB, developed by our group. This model was later given a firm relational-database footing in the Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center (CPMC) CDR. The original introduction of EAV design for clinical data storage dates back to the TMR (The Medical Record) system created by Stead and Hammond at Duke in the late 1970s, and the HELP system. EAV, as a general-purpose means of knowledge representation, has its roots in the “association lists” of languages such as LISP, where arbitrary information on any object is recorded as a set of attribute-value pairs, and the early object-oriented languages such as SIMULA 67. The institution/enterprise-level CDRs of Cerner and 3M use an EAV component. Entity-Attribute-Value design is widely used for clinical data repositories (CDRs).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |