Scoping review of the recommendations and guidance for improving the quality of rare disease registries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rare disease registries (RDRs) are valuable tools for improving clinical care and advancing research. However, they often vary qualitatively, structurally, and operationally in ways that can determine their potential utility as a source of evidence to support decision-making regarding the approval and funding of new treatments for rare diseases. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this research project was to review the literature on rare disease registries and identify best practices to improve the quality of RDRs. METHODS: In this scoping review, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE as well as the websites of regulatory bodies and health technology assessment agencies from 2010 to April 2023 for literature offering guidance or recommendations to ensure, improve, or maintain quality RDRs. RESULTS: The search yielded 1,175 unique references, of which 64 met the inclusion criteria. The characteristics of RDRs deemed to be relevant to their quality align with three main domains and several sub-domains considered to be best practices for quality RDRs: (1) governance (registry purpose and description; governance structure; stakeholder engagement; sustainability; ethics/legal/privacy; data governance; documentation; and training and support); (2) data (standardized disease classification; common data elements; data dictionary; data collection; data quality and assurance; and data analysis and reporting); and (3) information technology (IT) infrastructure (physical and virtual infrastructure; and software infrastructure guided by FAIR principles (Findability; Accessibility; Interoperability; and Reusability). CONCLUSIONS: Although RDRs face numerous challenges due to their small and dispersed populations, RDRs can generate quality data to support healthcare decision-making through the use of standards and principles on strong governance, quality data practices, and IT infrastructure.
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 | 0.231 | 0.590 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.069 | 0.059 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".