A Versatile and Scalable Platform That Streamlines Data Collection for Patient-Centered Studies: Usability and Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) established the Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) Initiative with several objectives, including the expansion and enhancement of CBER's access to fit-for-purpose data sources, analytics, tools, and infrastructures to improve the understanding of patient experiences with conditions related to CBER-regulated products. Owing to existing challenges in data collection, especially for rare disease research, CBER recognized the need for a comprehensive platform where study coordinators can engage with study participants and design and deploy studies while patients or caregivers could enroll, consent, and securely participate as well. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to increase awareness and describe the design, development, and novelty of the Survey of Health and Patient Experience (SHAPE) platform, its functionality and application, quality improvement efforts, open-source availability, and plans for enhancement. METHODS: SHAPE is hosted in a Google Cloud environment and comprises 3 parts: the administrator application, participant app, and application programming interface. The administrator can build a study comprising a set of questionnaires and self-report entries through the app. Once the study is deployed, the participant can access the app, consent to the study, and complete its components. To build SHAPE to be scalable and flexible, we leveraged the open-source software development kit, Ionic Framework. This enabled the building and deploying of apps across platforms, including iOS, Android, and progressive web applications, from a single codebase by using standardized web technologies. SHAPE has been integrated with a leading Health Level 7 (HL7®) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR®) application programming interface platform, 1upHealth, which allows participants to consent to 1-time data pull of their electronic health records. We used an agile-based process that engaged multiple stakeholders in SHAPE's design and development. RESULTS: SHAPE allows study coordinators to plan, develop, and deploy questionnaires to obtain important end points directly from patients or caregivers. Electronic health record integration enables access to patient health records, which can validate and enhance the accuracy of data-capture methods. The administrator can then download the study data into HL7® FHIR®-formatted JSON files. In this paper, we illustrate how study coordinators can use SHAPE to design patient-centered studies. We demonstrate its broad applicability through a hypothetical type 1 diabetes cohort study and an ongoing pilot study on metachromatic leukodystrophy to implement best practices for designing a regulatory-grade natural history study for rare diseases. CONCLUSIONS: SHAPE is an intuitive and comprehensive data-collection tool for a variety of clinical studies. Further customization of this versatile and scalable platform allows for multiple use cases. SHAPE can capture patient perspectives and clinical data, thereby providing regulators, clinicians, researchers, and patient advocacy organizations with data to inform drug development and improve patient outcomes.
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 | 0.052 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".