Re: UNSUBSCRIBE RE: Health Evidence Knowledge Accelerator (HEvKA) Daily Progress February 27, 2026
Brian Alper
Brian S. Alper, MD, MSPH, FAAFP, FAMIA, FGIN
CEO, Computable Publishing LLC
bal...@computablepublishing.com
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2026 2:41 PM
To: Joanne Dehnbostel <jdehn...@computablepublishing.com>; Health Evidence Knowledge Accelerator (HEvKA) <HE...@computablepublishing.com>
Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE RE: Health Evidence Knowledge Accelerator (HEvKA) Daily Progress February 27, 2026
Wendy Chapman wendy....@unimelb.edu.au
From: Joanne Dehnbostel <jdehn...@computablepublishing.com>
Sent: Sunday, 1 March 2026 11:01 AM
To: Health Evidence Knowledge Accelerator (HEvKA) <HE...@computablepublishing.com>
Subject: [EXT] Health Evidence Knowledge Accelerator (HEvKA) Daily Progress February 27, 2026
|
External email: Please exercise caution |
Friday February 27
12 people (AS, BA, CA-D, HL, JD, JT, KS, KW, MA, PW, SM, TD) participated in up to 3 active working group meetings.
The Project Management Working Group discussed the new AI-Structured Eligibility Criteria Working Group that meets on Monday mornings at 9AM Eastern time. The agenda for this Monday is to identify “Relevant for automated matching” characteristics.
To show the value of representing eligibility criteria as structured data, we created before and after images of a study in the EU CTIS Registry.
The participation criteria in the EU CTIS Registry looks like:
The eligibility criteria as structured data on the FEvIR Platform looks like:
The group then planned the meeting agenda for next week:
|
Day/Time (Eastern US) |
Working Group |
Agenda Items |
|
Monday 9-10 am
|
AI-structured Eligibility Criteria
|
identifying 'Relevant for automated matching' characteristics
|
|
Monday 10-11 am |
Project Management |
FHIR changes, THO changes, IG changes |
|
Monday 2-3 pm |
StatisticsOnFHIR (a CDS EBMonFHIR sub-WG) |
Review article (Introduction to SEVCO) for readiness for submission; consider EndpointAnalysisPlan related project |
|
Tuesday 9-10 am |
Measuring the Rate of Scientific Knowledge Transfer (SKAF Board meeting monthly)
|
Adjudicated review of index articles, start search for guidelines |
|
Wednesday 8-9 am |
Computable EBM Tools Development |
Review new content and features for Net Benefit Calculator |
|
Wednesday 9-10 am |
Communications (Awareness, Scholarly Publications) |
Review/Submit Introduction to SEVCO article; consider proposals (AMIA, HIKM)
|
|
Wednesday 11 am-12 pm
|
StudyRegistryRecord Profile (a BRR EBMonFHIR sub-WG)
|
Map CTIS data elements to FHIR |
|
Thursday 8-9 am |
EBMonFHIR Implementation Guide (a CDS EBMonFHIR sub-WG) (GINTech every 3 months) |
Preparation for EBMonFHIR IG Ballot and for EBMonFHIR Incubator IG Ballot |
|
Thursday 9-10 am |
Making Guidelines Computable |
Preparation for EBMonFHIR IG Ballot (if needed), Cochrane example for WHO guideline for GLP-1 for obesity |
|
Friday 9-10 am |
Statistic Terminology |
Draft data transformation terms (e.g. meta-analysis) |
|
Friday 10-11 am |
GRADE Ontology |
Discuss terms open for voting (Acceptability), draft Feasibility |
|
Friday 12-1 pm |
Project Management |
Prepare next week's meeting agenda
|
The Statistics Terminology Working Group continued to discuss the hierarchy of the ontology below data transformation. The term regression analysis was added today. The STATO definition for regression analysis originated in OBI, we will begin to discuss the SEVCO definition next week.
The SEVCO manuscript has been sent to authors for approval and we anticipate submission to the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology next week.
Members of the SEVCO Expert working group also discussed the possibility of starting a new working group with a focus on AI structured clinical trial protocols which would include findings sets completed trials.
The GRADE Ontology Working Group found that the term Acceptability, which was open for voting last week,received 6 affirmative and 2 negative votes. Comments received from the expert working group are shown below.
Expert Working Group Comments on Acceptability:
1)
(a) Sentence 1, minor rephrasing for simplicity: Acceptability is a multidimensional construct that encompasses how people perceive an intervention’s appropriateness, reasonableness, and overall suitability.
(b) Sentence 2, choice of wording: Factors that influence *judgements about acceptability may include
(c) Last sentence, choice of wording: Suggest either: "Decision-makers and parties who need to..." instead of "interest-holders"; or define interest-holder as it is a new term in the comment for application.
2)
Having re-read GRADE EtD 1: Introduction https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2016
The comments for application focus on 'interventions' however, Table 1 considers five different types of decisions - Clinical recommendations–individual perspective; Clinical recommendations–population perspective; Coverage decisions; Health system and public health recommendations/decisions; Diagnostic, screening, and other tests. Do we need to list these?
Leading on from this, I am wondering if this might be a more suitable opening sentence: Acceptability is a multidimensional construct that encompasses interrelated factors that reflect how people perceive the appropriateness, reasonableness, and overall suitability of a decision.
Also, some of the examples of factors might need editing, as they only mention interventions.
The list of factors is comprehensive, however we seem to be missing a few key factors listed in Table 2. e.g., weighing benefits, harms/costs; impact on a person's autonomy; other moral objections and alignment with ethical principles.
Here is a potential option for weighing benefits, harms/cost
- the distribution of benefits, harms and costs, including weighing short term harms or costs against future benefits.
I would also recommend grouping the points about beliefs about benefits, perceived burden/costs, and weighing benefits, harms and costs together in that order.
3) Although not sure if we really need the last paragraph, since it refers to implementation, not acceptability itself.
After discussion, the term was refined and has been re-opened for voting. We hope to return to the definition of the term Feasibility next week.
The GRADE Guidance Group (GGG) has informed us that our definition of the term Inconsistency has received their final approval.
The meeting was recorded and can be viewed here.
|
Term |
Definition |
Alternative Terms (if any) |
Comment for application (if any) |
|
The extent to which the decision is likely to be supported or adopted. |
Acceptability is a multidimensional construct that encompasses how people perceive the appropriateness, reasonableness, and overall suitability of a decision.
Factors that influence acceptability may include: - beliefs about whether an intervention is likely to achieve its intended outcomes and provide meaningful benefit; - the perceived burden or effort required to participate in, deliver, or implement an intervention, including time, costs, complexity, and opportunity costs; - emotional responses elicited by the recommended action (e.g., comfort, reassurance, anxiety, or distress); - alignment of the recommended action with personal, cultural, religious, professional, or societal values and preferences; - the degree to which individuals understand how an intervention works and the rationale for its use; and - confidence in one’s ability to carry out, adhere to, or deliver an intervention successfully.
To implement the decision, decision-makers need to adopt it and other parties need to support it. Those who need to adopt or support the decision may include patients, caregivers, healthcare providers, healthcare organizations, and payers. |
Releases on the FEvIR Platform
FEvIR?: Group Viewer Release 1.2.0 (February 27, 2026) displays 'Relevant for automated matching' or 'Not relevant for automated matching' with each characteristic if an extension is present.
FEvIR?: Group Builder Release 1.4.0 (February 27, 2026) provides a 'Relevant for automated matching' checkbox with each characteristic that creates an extension on Group.characteristic.
Quote for Thought
“We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one.” — Steven Moffat
To get involved or stay informed: HEvKA Project Page on FEvIR Platform, HEvKA Project Page on HL7 Confluence, View a consolidated list of presentations, videos, posters, journal articles, and book chapter mentions related to HEvKA, COKA, EBMonFHIR and the FEvIR Platform
at https://ComputablePublishing.com/media. or join any of the groups that are now meeting in the following weekly schedule:
(The current week’s agenda can always be found at: https://fevir.net/resources/Composition/29272).
Weekly Meeting Schedule and Link:
Day
Time (Eastern)
Team
Monday
9-10 am
AI-Structured Eligibility Criteria *New Meeting
Monday
10-11 am
Project Management WG*new time
Monday
2-3 pm
StatisticsOnFHIR WG (a CDS EBMonFHIR sub-WG)*new time
Tuesday
9-10 am
Measuring the Rate of Scientific Knowledge Transfer WG
Wednesday
8-9 am
Computable EBM Tools Development WG
Wednesday
9-10 am
Communications(Awareness, Scholarly Publications) WG
Wednesday
11 am - 12 pm
StudyRegistryRecordProfile WG (a BRR EBMonFHIR sub-WG) *new time
Thursday
8-9 am
EBM Implementation Guide WG (a CDS EBMonFHIR sub-WG)
Thursday
9-10 am
Making Guidelines Computable WG
Friday
9-10 am
Statistic Terminology WG *New Time
Friday
10-11 am
GRADE Ontology WG
Friday
12-1 pm
Project Management WG
To join any of these meetings:
________________________________________________________________________________
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer, mobile app or room device
Click here to join the meeting *New Link as of January 2024
Meeting ID: 279 232 517 719
Passcode: 8pCpbFDownload Teams | Join on the web
Or call in (audio only)
+1 929-346-7156,,35579956# United States, New York City
Phone Conference ID: 355 799 56#
Meeting support by ComputablePublishing.com
Joanne Dehnbostel MS MPH
Research and Analysis Manager, Computable Publishing LLC
The views and opinions included in this email belong to their author and do not necessarily mirror the views and opinions of the company. Our employees are obliged not to make any defamatory clauses, infringe, or authorize infringement of any legal right. Therefore, the company will not take any liability for such statements included in emails. In case of any damages or other liabilities arising, employees are fully responsible for the content of their emails.
