Enabling FAIR data stewardship in complex international multi-site studies: Data Operations for the Accelerating Medicines Partnership® Schizophrenia Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern research management, particularly for publicly funded studies, assumes a data governance model in which grantees are considered stewards rather than owners of important data sets. Thus, there is an expectation that collected data are shared as widely as possible with the general research community. This presents problems in complex studies that involve sensitive health information. The latter requires balancing participant privacy with the needs of the research community. Here, we report on the data operation ecosystem crafted for the Accelerating Medicines Partnership® Schizophrenia project, an international observational study of young individuals at clinical high risk for developing a psychotic disorder. We review data capture systems, data dictionaries, organization principles, data flow, security, quality control protocols, data visualization, monitoring, and dissemination through the NIMH Data Archive platform. We focus on the interconnectedness of these steps, where our goal is to design a seamless data flow and an alignment with the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) principles while balancing local regulatory and ethical considerations. This process-oriented approach leverages automated pipelines for data flow to enhance data quality, speed, and collaboration, underscoring the project's contribution to advancing research practices involving multisite studies of sensitive mental health conditions. An important feature is the data's close-to-real-time quality assessment (QA) and quality control (QC). The focus on close-to-real-time QA/QC makes it possible for a subject to redo a testing session, as well as facilitate course corrections to prevent repeating errors in future data acquisition. Watch Dr. Sylvain Bouix discuss his work and this article: https://vimeo.com/1025555648 .
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 | 0.258 | 0.186 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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; 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".