The Quality Assurance and Quality Control Protocol for Neuropsychological Data Collection and Curation in the Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative (ONDRI) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As large research initiatives designed to generate big data on clinical cohorts become more common, there is an increasing need to establish standard quality assurance (QA; preventing errors) and quality control (QC; identifying and correcting errors) procedures for critical outcome measures. The present article describes the QA and QC approach developed and implemented for the neuropsychology data collected as part of the Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative study. We report on the efficacy of our approach and provide data quality metrics. Our findings demonstrate that even with a comprehensive QA protocol, the proportion of data errors still can be high. Additionally, we show that several widely used neuropsychological measures are particularly susceptible to error. These findings highlight the need for large research programs to put into place active, comprehensive, and separate QA and QC procedures before, during, and after protocol deployment. Detailed recommendations and considerations for future studies are provided.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.391 | 0.375 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".