Use of Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) Standards for Real-world Data: Expert Perspectives From a Qualitative Delphi Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) are playing increasingly important roles in clinical research and health care decision-making. To leverage RWD and generate reliable RWE, data should be well defined and structured in a way that is semantically interoperable and consistent across stakeholders. The adoption of data standards is one of the cornerstones supporting high-quality evidence for the development of clinical medicine and therapeutics. Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) data standards are mature, globally recognized, and heavily used by the pharmaceutical industry for regulatory submissions. The CDISC RWD Connect Initiative aims to better understand the barriers to implementing CDISC standards for RWD and to identify the tools and guidance needed to more easily implement them. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to understand the barriers to implementing CDISC standards for RWD and to identify the tools and guidance that may be needed to implement CDISC standards more easily for this purpose. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative Delphi survey involving an expert advisory board with multiple key stakeholders, with 3 rounds of input and review. RESULTS: Overall, 66 experts participated in round 1, 56 in round 2, and 49 in round 3 of the Delphi survey. Their inputs were collected and analyzed, culminating in group statements. It was widely agreed that the standardization of RWD is highly necessary, and the primary focus should be on its ability to improve data sharing and the quality of RWE. The priorities for RWD standardization included electronic health records, such as data shared using Health Level 7 Fast Health care Interoperability Resources (FHIR), and the data stemming from observational studies. With different standardization efforts already underway in these areas, a gap analysis should be performed to identify the areas where synergies and efficiencies are possible and then collaborate with stakeholders to create or extend existing mappings between CDISC and other standards, controlled terminologies, and models to represent data originating across different sources. CONCLUSIONS: There are many ongoing data standardization efforts around human health data-related activities, each with different definitions, levels of granularity, and purpose. Among these, CDISC has been successful in standardizing clinical trial-based data for regulation worldwide. However, the complexity of the CDISC standards and the fact that they were developed for different purposes, combined with the lack of awareness and incentives to use a new standard and insufficient training and implementation support, are significant barriers to setting up the use of CDISC standards for RWD. The collection and dissemination of use cases, development of tools and support systems for the RWD community, and collaboration with other standards development organizations are potential steps forward. Using CDISC will help link clinical trial data and RWD and promote innovation in health data science.
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 | 0.189 | 0.211 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".