Sander J.J. Leemans

Sander J.J. Leemans

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

14Years (2013-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications

10 May 2014
Verified
Book Chapter
Closed access
PDF file
SLSander J.J. Leemans
Sander J.J. Leemans
DFDirk Fahland
Dirk Fahland
Wil M.P. van der AalstWil M.P. van der Aalst
Wil M.P. van der Aalst

27 May 2015
Verified
Book Chapter
Closed access
PDF file
MEMaikel L. van Eck
Maikel L. van Eck
XLXixi Lu
Xixi Lu
SLSander J.J. Leemans
Sander J.J. Leemans
Wil M.P. van der AalstWil M.P. van der Aalst
Wil M.P. van der Aalst

8 July 2016 in Software and Systems Modeling
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SLSander J.J. Leemans
Sander J.J. Leemans
DFDirk Fahland
Dirk Fahland
Wil M.P. van der AalstWil M.P. van der Aalst
Wil M.P. van der Aalst
Considerable amounts of data, including process events, are collected and stored by organisations nowadays. Discovering a process model from such event data and verification of the quality of discovered models are important steps in process mining. Many discovery techniques have been proposed, but none of them combines scalability with strong quality guarantees. We would like such techniques to handle billions of events or thousands of activities, to produce sound models (without deadlocks and other anomalies), and to guarantee that the underlying process can be rediscovered when sufficient information is available. In this paper, we introduce a framework for process discovery that ensures these properties while passing over the log only once and introduce three algorithms using the framework. To measure the quality of discovered models for such large logs, we introduce a model–model and model–log comparison framework that applies a divide-and-conquer strategy to measure recall, fitness, and precision. We experimentally show that these discovery and measuring techniques sacrifice little compared to other algorithms, while gaining the ability to cope with event logs of 100,000,000 traces and processes of 10,000 activities on a standard computer.

31 March 2023 in Journal of Medical Internet Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
RSRehan Syed
Rehan Syed
RERebekah Eden
Rebekah Eden
TMTendai Makasi
Tendai Makasi
ICIgnatius Chukwudi
Ignatius Chukwudi
AMAzumah Mamudu
Azumah Mamudu
TMTrina Myers
Trina Myers
Background: The promise of digital health is principally dependent on the ability to electronically capture data that can be analyzed to improve decision-making. However, the ability to effectively harness data has proven elusive, largely because of the quality of the data captured. Despite the importance of data quality (DQ), an agreed-upon DQ taxonomy evades literature. When consolidated frameworks are developed, the dimensions are often fragmented, without consideration of the interrelationships among the dimensions or their resultant impact. Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a consolidated digital health DQ dimension and outcome (DQ-DO) framework to provide insights into 3 research questions: What are the dimensions of digital health DQ? How are the dimensions of digital health DQ related? and What are the impacts of digital health DQ? Methods: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a developmental systematic literature review was conducted of peer-reviewed literature focusing on digital health DQ in predominately hospital settings. A total of 227 relevant articles were retrieved and inductively analyzed to identify digital health DQ dimensions and outcomes. The inductive analysis was performed through open coding, constant comparison, and card sorting with subject matter experts to identify digital health DQ dimensions and digital health DQ outcomes. Subsequently, a computer-assisted analysis was performed and verified by DQ experts to identify the interrelationships among the DQ dimensions and relationships between DQ dimensions and outcomes. The analysis resulted in the development of the DQ-DO framework. Results: The digital health DQ-DO framework consists of 6 dimensions of DQ, namely accessibility, accuracy, completeness, consistency, contextual validity, and currency; interrelationships among the dimensions of digital health DQ, with consistency being the most influential dimension impacting all other digital health DQ dimensions; 5 digital health DQ outcomes, namely clinical, clinician, research-related, business process, and organizational outcomes; and relationships between the digital health DQ dimensions and DQ outcomes, with the consistency and accessibility dimensions impacting all DQ outcomes. Conclusions: The DQ-DO framework developed in this study demonstrates the complexity of digital health DQ and the necessity for reducing digital health DQ issues. The framework further provides health care executives with holistic insights into DQ issues and resultant outcomes, which can help them prioritize which DQ-related problems to tackle first.

1 January 2014
Verified
Book Chapter
Closed access
PDF file
SLSander J.J. Leemans
Sander J.J. Leemans
DFDirk Fahland
Dirk Fahland
Wil M.P. van der AalstWil M.P. van der Aalst
Wil M.P. van der Aalst