Detecting irregularities in randomized controlled trials using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the course of a clinical trial, irregularities may arise in the data. Trialists implement human-intensive, expensive central statistical monitoring procedures to identify and correct these irregularities before the results of the trial are analyzed and disseminated. Machine learning algorithms have shown promise for identifying center-level irregularities in multi-center clinical trials with minimal human intervention. We aimed to characterize the form-level data irregularities in several historical clinical trials and evaluate the ability of a machine learning-based outlier detection algorithm to identify them. METHODS: Data irregularities previously identified by humans in historical clinical trials were ascertained by comparing preliminary snapshots of the trial databases to the final, locked databases. We measured the ability of a machine learning based outlier detection algorithm to identify form-level irregularities using concordance (area under the receiver operator characteristic), positive predictive value (precision), and sensitivity (recall). RESULTS: We examined preliminary snapshots of seven historical clinical trials which randomized a total of 77,001 participants. We extracted a total of 1,267,484 completed entries from 358 case report forms containing irregularities from all snapshots across all trials, containing a total of 24,850 form-wide irregularities (median per-form form-level irregularity rate: 1.81%). Our proposed machine learning algorithm detects form-level irregularities with a median concordance of 0.74 (interquartile range = 0.57-0.89), slightly exceeding the performance of a previously proposed machine learning approach with a median area under the receiver operator characteristic of 0.73 (interquartile range = 0.54-0.88). CONCLUSION: Data irregularities in historical clinical trials were ascertained by comparing preliminary snapshots of the trial database to the final database. These irregularities can be categorized according to their scope. Irregularities can be successfully detected by a machine learning algorithm as early or earlier than a human can, without human intervention. Such an approach may complement existing techniques for central statistical monitoring in large multi-center randomized controlled trials and possibly improve the efficiency of costly data verification processes.
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 | 0.302 | 0.598 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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; 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".