Accelerating eSource scale-up in oncology clinical trials: The i~HD Task Force initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
eSource - particularly EHR-to-EDC - is an emerging paradigm in clinical research that enables automated transfer of electronic health record (EHR) data into electronic data capture (EDC) systems, with the potential to reduce site burden, improve data quality and accelerate oncology clinical trial workflows. However, widespread implementation remains limited due to technical, regulatory and operational barriers. To address these challenges, the European Institute for Innovation through Health Data (i~HD) launched the eSource Scale-Up Task Force in 2024. This multi-stakeholder initiative brings together leading oncology centres and pharmaceutical sponsors to establish a consensus-driven roadmap for eSource adoption. Central to this effort are three foundational resources: readiness criteria for early adopters, a performance indicator framework for monitoring success and an operational playbook to guide implementation. This article provides a structured overview of the Task Force's objectives, collaborative model and outputs, with specific attention to its focus on interoperability, regulatory alignment and real-world validation. While initially developed for oncology, the Task Force's framework is applicable across therapeutic areas characterized by data-intensive workflows.
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 | 0.127 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".