MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411798232 · doi:10.2196/60204

Proposal for Using AI to Assess Clinical Data Integrity and Generate Metadata: Algorithm Development and Validation

2025· article· en· W4411798232 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Caroline Bönisch, Christian Schmidt, Dorothea Kesztyüs, Hans A. Kestler, Tibor Kesztyüs

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMachine learningData qualityNaive Bayes classifierQuality assuranceData miningClinical decision support systemDecision treeMetadataArtificial intelligenceData integrityDecision support systemSupport vector machineMedicineDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Evidence-based medicine combines scientific research, clinical expertise, and patient preferences to enhance the patient outcomes and improve health care quality. Clinical data are crucial in aligning medical decisions with evidence-based practices, whether derived from systematic research or real-world data sources. Quality assurance of clinical data, mainly through predictive quality algorithms and machine learning, is essential to mitigate risks such as misdiagnosis, inappropriate treatment, bias, and compromised patient safety. Furthermore, excellent quality of clinical data is a prerequisite for the replication of research results in order to gain insights from practice and real-world evidence. Objective: This study aims to demonstrate the varying quality of medical data in primary clinical source systems at a maximum care university hospital and provide researchers with insights into data reliability through predictive quality algorithms using machine learning techniques. Methods: A literature review was conducted to evaluate existing approaches to automated quality prediction. In addition, embedded in the process of integrating care data into a medical data integration center (MeDIC), metadata relevant to this clinical data was stored, considering factors such as data granularity and quality metrics. Completed patient cases with echocardiographic and laboratory findings as well as medication histories were selected from 2001 to 2023. Two authors manually reviewed the datasets and assigned a quality score for each entry, with 0 indicating unsatisfactory and 1 satisfactory quality. Since quality control was considered a binary problem, corresponding classifiers were used for the quality prediction. Logistic regression, k-nearest neighbors, a naive bayes classifier, a decision tree classifier, a random forest classifier, extreme gradient boosting (XGB), and support vector machines (SVM) were selected as machine learning algorithms. Based on preprocessing the dataset, training machine learning algorithms on echocardiographic, laboratory, and medication data, and assessing various prediction models, the most effective algorithms for quality classification were to be identified. The performance of the predictive quality algorithms was assessed based on accuracy, precision, recall, and scoring. Results: There were 450 patient cases with complete information extracted from the MeDIC data pool. The laboratory and medication datasets had to be limited to 4000 data entries each to enable manual review; the echocardiographic datasets comprised 750 examinations. XGB demonstrated the highest performance for the echocardiographic dataset with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 84.6%. For laboratory data, SVM achieved an AUC-ROC score of 89.8%, demonstrating superior discrimination performance. Finally, regarding the medication dataset, SVM showed the most balanced performance, achieving an AUC-ROC of 65.1%, the highest of all tested models. Conclusions: This proposal presents a template for predicting data quality and incorporating the resulting quality information into the metadata of a data integration center, a concept not previously implemented. The model was deployed for data inspection using a hybrid approach that combines the trained model with conventional inspection methods.

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)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.472
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.100 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207