MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962866587 · doi:10.2196/14310

A Good Practice–Compliant Clinical Trial Imaging Management System for Multicenter Clinical Trials: Development and Validation Study

2019· article· en· W2962866587 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Youngbin Shin, Kyung Won Kim, Amy Junghyun Lee, Yu Sub Sung, Suah Ahn, Ja Hwan Koo, Chang Gyu Choi, Yousun Ko, Ho Sung Kim, Seong Ho Park

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowClinical trialProtocol (science)HarmonizationAuditProcess managementGood laboratory practiceMedicineMedical physicsComputer scienceQuality assuranceDatabaseEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With the rapid increase in utilization of imaging endpoints in multicenter clinical trials, the amount of data and workflow complexity have also increased. A Clinical Trial Imaging Management System (CTIMS) is required to comprehensively support imaging processes in clinical trials. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a guidance protocol in 2018 for appropriate use of medical imaging in accordance with many regulations including the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines. Existing research on CTIMS, however, has mainly focused on functions and structures of systems rather than regulation and compliance. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a comprehensive CTIMS to meet the current regulatory guidelines and various required functions. We also aimed to perform computerized system validation focusing on the regulatory compliance of our CTIMS. METHODS: Key regulatory requirements of CTIMS were extracted thorough review of many related regulations and guidelines including International Conference on Harmonization-GCP E6, FDA 21 Code of Federal Regulations parts 11 and 820, Good Automated Manufacturing Practice, and Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium. The system architecture was designed in accordance with these regulations by a multidisciplinary team including radiologists, engineers, clinical trial specialists, and regulatory medicine professionals. Computerized system validation of the developed CTIMS was performed internally and externally. RESULTS: Our CTIMS (AiCRO) was developed based on a two-layer design composed of the server system and the client system, which is efficient at meeting the regulatory and functional requirements. The server system manages system security, data archive, backup, and audit trail. The client system provides various functions including deidentification, image transfer, image viewer, image quality control, and electronic record. Computerized system validation was performed internally using a V-model and externally by a global quality assurance company to demonstrate that AiCRO meets all regulatory and functional requirements. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a Good Practice-compliant CTIMS-AiCRO system-to manage large amounts of image data and complexity of imaging management processes in clinical trials. Our CTIMS adopts and adheres to all regulatory and functional requirements and has been thoroughly validated.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.384 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207