MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409785689 · doi:10.2196/64114

Real-Time, Risk-Based Clinical Trial Quality Management in China: Development of a Digital Monitoring Platform

2025· article· en· W4409785689 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Min Jiang, Shuhua Zhao, Yun Mei, Zhiying Fu, Yannan Yuan, Jie Ai, Ying Gong, J Y Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialInterim analysisComputer scienceBeijingWarning systemData miningQuality (philosophy)Medical physicsMedicineChinaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: With the improvement of the drug evaluation system in China, an increasing number of clinical trials have been launched in Chinese hospitals. However, traditional clinical trial quality management models largely rely on human monitoring and counting, which can be time-consuming and are likely to generate errors and biases. There is an urgent need to upgrade and improve the efficiency and accuracy of clinical trial quality monitoring systems in hospital-based research institutions within China. Objective: The objective of this study was to develop a digital monitoring platform that allows for the real-time monitoring and detection of risk points and provides warnings about risk points throughout the entire life cycle of clinical trials, on the basis of historical clinical trial quality control (QC) findings. Methods: Leveraging the risk-based quality management mindset, we built a digital dynamic monitoring platform by using big data analysis and automatic quantitative technology. Data from clinical trial QC reports generated during 2019 to 2023 in Beijing University Cancer Hospital, China, were used to train the automated classification tool, establish warning thresholds, and validate threshold values. Quality findings from the early-stage, interim-stage, and conclusion-stage QC rounds of clinical trials were rated by using 3 severity grades (minor, major, or critical) and classified into 5 categories (with 4 taxonomy levels under each category). QC report text was processed by using an automated natural language processing tool. All QC reports were grouped into 2 clusters via hierarchical clustering analysis. QC findings from the relatively high-risk cluster (reports that were more likely to have major and critical findings, as determined by experienced QC analysts) were used to determine warning threshold values for the monitoring platform (ie, the lowest number of findings was set as the threshold value for each specific study stage, Level-3 taxonomy, and severity grade combination). Results: The most frequently reported Level-3 taxonomies in QC reports from 2019 to 2022 were "Standard Procedure and Process," "Safety Reporting," and "Source Data Collection and/or Recording." In total, 189 warning threshold values were established based on data from 1380 QC reports generated during 2019 to 2022, covering 3 severity grades, 21 Level-3 taxonomies, and 3 QC rounds. The warning thresholds were applied to 211 QC reports generated in 2023, of which 19.9% (n=42) triggered warnings. Similar patterns of QC findings, including the most frequently noted Level-3 QC findings, were observed between reports generated in 2023 and those from 2019 to 2022. Conclusions: In clinical practice, our tool would enable the automated monitoring and detection of risk points throughout all clinical trial stages; accurately identify the most relevant trial procedure and function line; and notify quality management personnel, in real time, to take prompt actions and dynamically prevent the recurrence of quality issues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.410
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207