ASN's Mission

To create a world without kidney diseases, the ASN Alliance for Kidney Health elevates care by educating and informing, driving breakthroughs and innovation, and advocating for policies that create transformative changes in kidney medicine throughout the world.

learn more

Contact ASN

1401 H St, NW, Ste 900, Washington, DC 20005

email@asn-online.org

202-640-4660

The Latest on X

Kidney Week

Abstract: TH-PO0638

Limitations of Phecodes for Kidney Phenotypes: Implications for Genomic and Electronic Health Records (EHR)-Based Research

Session Information

Category: Genetic Diseases of the Kidneys

  • 1202 Genetic Diseases of the Kidneys: Complex Kidney Traits

Authors

  • Nestor, Jordan Gabriela, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
  • Fang, Yilu, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
  • Zachariah, Teena, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
  • Prakash-Polet, Sindhuri, New York University, New York, New York, United States
  • Han, Heedeok, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
  • Navarro Torres, Mariela, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
  • Weng, Chunhua, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
Background

Phecodes are widely used to group ICD codes into phenotypes for high-throughput genomic research (e.g., GWAS, PheWAS). However, their clinical granularity varies, limiting their utility in precision nephrology, where disease classifications are closely tied to prognosis and treatment.

Methods

We manually curated 2,363 kidney-related SNOMED-CT concepts using the OMOP Common Data Model. EHR data from NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center through Q3 2023 were queried to identify which concepts were used in patient records (n = 261 concepts; n=1,127,717 patients). Phecode assignment was attempted using the UMLS Metathesaurus and VA phecode map. Three blinded nephrologists independently rated each mapping as a “good”, “acceptable”, or “poor/low granularity” match; final classifications were determined by majority vote.

Results

No direct phecode match existed for 106 of 261 concepts (40.6%), affecting 25.3% of patients (n=285,083). Among the 155 concepts with mapped phecodes, only 65 (41.9%) were rated as good matches; 60 (38.7%) were acceptable, and 30 (19.4%) were poor/low granularity.

Conclusion

Phecodes lack the granularity and traceability needed for accurate kidney phenotyping, collapsing distinct clinical features into broad categories and limiting their utility in advancing genomic research. When phenotype definitions lack clinical specificity, the validity of downstream genomic and multi-omics discoveries is fundamentally compromised. In contrast, the OMOP Common Data Model with SNOMED-CT and UMLS enables precise, interpretable, and interoperable phenotyping—essential for generating clinically meaningful insights from big data.

Summary of Phecode Coverage and Match Quality for Kidney Concepts
MetricCountPercent (%)
Total Kidney-related Concepts Evaluated261100%
-With Direct Phecode Match15559.4%
Good Match6541.9% (of mapped)
Acceptable Match6038.7% (of mapped)
Poor Match/Low Granularity3019.4% (of mapped)
-No Phecode Match10640.6%
Patients Affected by Unmatched Concepts285,08325.3% (of 1,127,717 total patients)

Funding

  • NIDDK Support

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)