The research data management platform (RDMP): A novel, process driven, open-source tool for the management of longitudinal cohorts of clinical data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Health Informatics Centre at the University of Dundee provides a service to securely host clinical datasets and extract relevant data for anonymized cohorts to researchers to enable them to answer key research questions. As is common in research using routine healthcare data, the service was historically delivered using ad-hoc processes resulting in the slow provision of data whose provenance was often hidden to the researchers using it. This paper describes the development and evaluation of the Research Data Management Platform (RDMP): an open source tool to load, manage, clean, and curate longitudinal healthcare data for research and provide reproducible and updateable datasets for defined cohorts to researchers. Results: Between 2013 and 2017, RDMP tool implementation tripled the productivity of data analysts producing data releases for researchers from 7.1 to 25.3 per month and reduced the error rate from 12.7% to 3.1%. The effort on data management reduced from a mean of 24.6 to 3.0 hours per data release. The waiting time for researchers to receive data after agreeing a specification reduced from approximately 6 months to less than 1 week. The software is scalable and currently manages 163 datasets. A total 1,321 data extracts for research have been produced, with the largest extract linking data from 70 different datasets. Conclusions: The tools and processes that encompass the RDMP not only fulfil the research data management requirements of researchers but also support the seamless collaboration of data cleaning, data transformation, data summarization and data quality assessment activities by different research groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.106 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.044 | 0.039 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it