MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117312634 · doi:10.1002/alz70859_103051

Detecting Site‐Level Fraud via an Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning Paradoxical Patient Analysis in an Alzheimer's Disease Clinical Trial

2025· article· en· W7117312634 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Geraci, Patrick P O'Keefe, Bessi Qorri, Paul Leonchyk, Larry Alphs, Luca Pani, Kent Hendrix, Samuel P. Dickson, Suzanne Hendrix

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialDiseasePatient dataBaseline (sea)Work (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ensuring data integrity in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) clinical trials is crucial, yet the subjective nature of endpoints and potential site-level inconsistencies can undermine study outcomes. Paradoxical patients, defined as individuals whose data clustering patterns deviate significantly from expected norms, may indicate anomalies such as fraudulent or unrepresentative behavior. We developed and applied NetraAI, a machine learning (ML) framework leveraging information-theoretic methods and clustering penalties, to detect paradoxical patients and indirectly assess site-level anomalies. Our aim was to determine whether analyzing patient-level data alone could uncover both patient-specific and site-specific fraudulent activities. METHOD: Using data from approximately 200 AD patients enrolled in a clinical trial, NetraAI generated a Paradoxical Patient Risk Score by simulating hundreds of patient geometry scenarios using only baseline and screening variables, including clinical scale data (ADAS-Cog, ADCS-ADL, MMSE, CDR-SB, NPI), medical data (vital signs, medical history, and labs), and adverse events and pharmacokinetic assessments. The score integrated information-theoretic variability, singleton occurrence frequencies, and co-association penalties, enabling robust anomaly detection at the patient level. Patients were ranked by their paradoxical scores and their corresponding sites were mapped post-hoc. These results were compared to independently empirically-derived site "true fraud scores" (based on factors outside of screening and baseline factors) withheld during initial analyses to validate our findings. RESULT: The NetraAI findings aligned with the holdout fraud data. Notably, Site G hosted the largest concentration of top-ranked paradoxical patients, aligning with its true fraud score of 6.89. Conversely, Site R ranked as low-risk by patient-derived scores, matching its low fraud score of 2.21. Across all sites, strong correlations emerged between patient-driven scores and true fraud scores, with top-ranked sites such as G and M consistently flagged as problematic. CONCLUSION: This work demonstrates that NetraAI's paradoxical patient-focused approach can identify anomalous patients and sites in AD clinical trials using screening and baseline data alone, even without prior site-level fraud data. By relying solely on patient-level metrics, NetraAI provides a scalable, objective strategy to enhance data integrity in clinical trials. Future research will extend these insights to direct site-level assessments, further refining this framework for broader clinical trial applications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207