Data Flow Construction and Quality Evaluation of Electronic Source Data in Clinical Trials: Pilot Study Based on Hospital Electronic Medical Records in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The traditional clinical trial data collection process requires a clinical research coordinator who is authorized by the investigators to read from the hospital's electronic medical record. Using electronic source data opens a new path to extract patients' data from electronic health records (EHRs) and transfer them directly to an electronic data capture (EDC) system; this method is often referred to as eSource. eSource technology in a clinical trial data flow can improve data quality without compromising timeliness. At the same time, improved data collection efficiency reduces clinical trial costs. Objective: This study aims to explore how to extract clinical trial-related data from hospital EHR systems, transform the data into a format required by the EDC system, and transfer it into sponsors' environments, and to evaluate the transferred data sets to validate the availability, completeness, and accuracy of building an eSource dataflow. Methods: A prospective clinical trial study registered on the Drug Clinical Trial Registration and Information Disclosure Platform was selected, and the following data modules were extracted from the structured data of 4 case report forms: demographics, vital signs, local laboratory data, and concomitant medications. The extracted data was mapped and transformed, deidentified, and transferred to the sponsor's environment. Data validation was performed based on availability, completeness, and accuracy. Results: In a secure and controlled data environment, clinical trial data was successfully transferred from a hospital EHR to the sponsor's environment with 100% transcriptional accuracy, but the availability and completeness of the data could be improved. Conclusions: Data availability was low due to some required fields in the EDC system not being available directly in the EHR. Some data is also still in an unstructured or paper-based format. The top-level design of the eSource technology and the construction of hospital electronic data standards should help lay a foundation for a full electronic data flow from EHRs to EDC systems in the future.
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 | 0.103 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".