Describing diversity of real world data sources in pharmacoepidemiologic studies: The <scp>DIVERSE</scp> scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used for medical regulatory decisions, yet concerns persist regarding its reproducibility and hence validity. This study addresses reproducibility challenges associated with diversity across real-world data sources (RWDS) repurposed for secondary use in pharmacoepidemiologic studies. Our aims were to identify, describe and characterize practices, recommendations and tools for collecting and reporting diversity across RWDSs, and explore how leveraging diversity could improve the quality of evidence. METHODS: In a preliminary phase, keywords for a literature search and selection tool were designed using a set of documents considered to be key by the coauthors. Next, a systematic search was conducted up to December 2021. The resulting documents were screened based on titles and abstracts, then based on full texts using the selection tool. Selected documents were reviewed to extract information on topics related to collecting and reporting RWDS diversity. A content analysis of the topics identified explicit and latent themes. RESULTS: Across the 91 selected documents, 12 topics were identified: 9 dimensions used to describe RWDS (organization accessing the data source, data originator, prompt, inclusion of population, content, data dictionary, time span, healthcare system and culture, and data quality), tools to summarize such dimensions, challenges, and opportunities arising from diversity. Thirty-six themes were identified within the dimensions. Opportunities arising from data diversity included multiple imputation and standardization. CONCLUSIONS: The dimensions identified across a large number of publications lay the foundation for formal guidance on reporting diversity of data sources to facilitate interpretation and enhance replicability and validity of RWE.
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 | 0.329 | 0.669 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.049 | 0.053 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".