Search

Data integration, the processes by which data are aggregated, combined, and made available for use, has been key to the development and growth of many technological solutions. In health care, we are experiencing a revolution in the use of sensors to collect data on patient behaviors and experiences. Yet, the potential of this data to transform health outcomes is being held back. Deficits in standards, lexicons, data rights, permissioning, and security have been well documented, less so the cultural adoption of sensor data integration as a priority for large-scale deployment and impact on patient lives. The use and reuse of trustworthy data to make better and faster decisions across drug development and care delivery will require an understanding of all stakeholder needs and best practices to ensure these needs are met. The Digital Medicine Society is launching a new multistakeholder Sensor Data Integration Tour of Duty to address these challenges and more, providing a clear direction on how sensor data can fulfill its potential to enhance patient lives.

We present Chia, a novel, large annotated corpus of patient eligibility criteria extracted from 1,000 interventional, Phase IV clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. This dataset includes 12,409 annotated eligibility criteria, represented by 41,487 distinctive entities of 15 entity types and 25,017 relationships of 12 relationship types. Each criterion is represented as a directed acyclic graph, which can be easily transformed into Boolean logic to form a database query. Chia can serve as a shared benchmark to develop and test future machine learning, rule-based, or hybrid methods for information extraction from free-text clinical trial eligibility criteria., Measurement(s) Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria • Analytical Procedure Accuracy Technology Type(s) digital curation • computational modeling technique Sample Characteristic - Organism Homo sapiens Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12765602

We examine the extent to which ClinicalTrials.gov is meeting its goal of providing oversight and transparency of clinical trials with human subjects. We analyzed the ClinicalTrials.gov database contents as of June 2011, comparing interventions, medical conditions, and trial characteristics by sponsor type. We also conducted a detailed analysis of incomplete data.Among trials with only government sponsorship (N=9252), 36% were observational and 64% interventional; in contrast, almost all (90%) industry-only sponsored trials were interventional. Industry-only sponsored interventional trials (N=30,036) were most likely to report a drug intervention (81%), followed by biologics (9%) and devices (8%). Government-only interventional trials (N=5886) were significantly more likely to test behavioral interventions (28%) and procedures (13%) than industry-only trials (p0.001). Medical conditions most frequently studied in industry-only trials were cancer (19%), cardiovascular conditions (12%) and endocrine/metabolic disorders (11%). Government-only funded trials were more likely to study mental health (19% vs. 7% for industry, p.001), and viral infections, including HIV (15% vs 7% for industry, p.001). Government-funded studies are significantly more likely to be missing data about study design and intervention arms in the registry. For all studies, we report ambiguous and contradictory data entries.Industry-sponsored studies differ systematically from government-sponsored studies in study type, choice of interventions, conditions studied, and completeness of submitted information. Imprecise study design information, incomplete coding of conditions, out-of-date or unspecified enrollment numbers, and other missing data continue to hinder robust analyses of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Background Data abstraction, a critical systematic review step, is time-consuming and prone to errors. Current standards for approaches to data abstraction rest on a weak evidence base. We developed the Data Abstraction Assistant (DAA), a novel software application designed to facilitate the abstraction process by allowing users to (1) view study article PDFs juxtaposed to electronic data abstraction forms linked to a data abstraction system, (2) highlight (or “pin”) the location of the text in the PDF, and (3) copy relevant text from the PDF into the form. We describe the design of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compares the relative effectiveness of (A) DAA-facilitated single abstraction plus verification by a second person, (B) traditional (non-DAA-facilitated) single abstraction plus verification by a second person, and (C) traditional independent dual abstraction plus adjudication to ascertain the accuracy and efficiency of abstraction. Methods This is an online, randomized, three-arm, crossover trial. We will enroll 24 pairs of abstractors (i.e., sample size is 48 participants), each pair comprising one less and one more experienced abstractor. Pairs will be randomized to abstract data from six articles, two under each of the three approaches. Abstractors will complete pre-tested data abstraction forms using the Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR), an online data abstraction system. The primary outcomes are (1) proportion of data items abstracted that constitute an error (compared with an answer key) and (2) total time taken to complete abstraction (by two abstractors in the pair, including verification and/or adjudication). Discussion The DAA trial uses a practical design to test a novel software application as a tool to help improve the accuracy and efficiency of the data abstraction process during systematic reviews. Findings from the DAA trial will provide much-needed evidence to strengthen current recommendations for data abstraction approaches. Trial registration The trial is registered at National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR) under Registration # HSRP20152269: https://wwwcf.nlm.nih.gov/hsr_project/view_hsrproj_record.cfm?NLMUNIQUE_ID=20152269&SEARCH_FOR=Tianjing%20Li. All items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set are covered at various locations in this protocol. Protocol version and date: This is version 2.0 of the protocol, dated September 6, 2016. As needed, we will communicate any protocol amendments to the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (JHBSPH) and Brown University. We also will make appropriate as-needed modifications to the NICHSR website in a timely fashion. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0373-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Formalizing eligibility criteria in a computer-interpretable language would facilitate eligibility determination for study subjects and the identification of studies on similar patient populations. Because such formalization is extremely labor intensive, we transform the problem from one of fully capturing the semantics of criteria directly in a formal expression language to one of annotating free-text criteria in a format called ERGO annotation. The annotation can be done manually, or it can be partially automated using natural-language processing techniques. We evaluated our approach in three ways. First, we assessed the extent to which ERGO annotations capture the semantics of 1000 eligibility criteria randomly drawn from ClinicalTrials.gov. Second, we demonstrated the practicality of the annotation process in a feasibility study. Finally, we demonstrate the computability of ERGO annotation by using it to (1) structure a library of eligibility criteria, (2) search for studies enrolling specified study populations, and (3) screen patients for potential eligibility for a study. We therefore demonstrate a new and practical method for incrementally capturing the semantics of free-text eligibility criteria into computable form.

Display Omitted We contribute a distribution analysis method to enhance ClinicalTrials.gov.We aggregate clinical studies by quantitative eligibility features.A Web-based tool VITTA visualizes the distribution analysis results.Stakeholders confirmed the value of VITTA for clinical study designers. ObjectiveTo develop a method for profiling the collective populations targeted for recruitment by multiple clinical studies addressing the same medical condition using one eligibility feature each time. MethodsUsing a previously published database COMPACT as the backend, we designed a scalable method for visual aggregate analysis of clinical trial eligibility features. This method consists of four modules for eligibility feature frequency analysis, query builder, distribution analysis, and visualization, respectively. This method is capable of analyzing (1) frequently used qualitative and quantitative features for recruiting subjects for a selected medical condition, (2) distribution of study enrollment on consecutive value points or value intervals of each quantitative feature, and (3) distribution of studies on the boundary values, permissible value ranges, and value range widths of each feature. All analysis results were visualized using Google Charts API. Five recruited potential users assessed the usefulness of this method for identifying common patterns in any selected eligibility feature for clinical trial participant selection. ResultsWe implemented this method as a Web-based analytical system called VITTA (Visual Analysis Tool of Clinical Study Target Populations). We illustrated the functionality of VITTA using two sample queries involving quantitative features BMI and HbA1c for conditions "hypertension" and "Type 2 diabetes", respectively. The recruited potential users rated the user-perceived usefulness of VITTA with an average score of 86.4/100. ConclusionsWe contributed a novel aggregate analysis method to enable the interrogation of common patterns in quantitative eligibility criteria and the collective target populations of multiple related clinical studies. A larger-scale study is warranted to formally assess the usefulness of VITTA among clinical investigators and sponsors in various therapeutic areas.

Background Clinical trials are one of the most important sources of evidence for guiding evidence-based practice and the design of new trials. However, most of this information is available only in free text - e.g., in journal publications - which is labour intensive to process for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and other evidence synthesis studies. This paper presents an automatic information extraction system, called ExaCT, that assists users with locating and extracting key trial characteristics (e.g., eligibility criteria, sample size, drug dosage, primary outcomes) from full-text journal articles reporting on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods ExaCT consists of two parts: an information extraction (IE) engine that searches the article for text fragments that best describe the trial characteristics, and a web browser-based user interface that allows human reviewers to assess and modify the suggested selections. The IE engine uses a statistical text classifier to locate those sentences that have the highest probability of describing a trial characteristic. Then, the IE engine's second stage applies simple rules to these sentences to extract text fragments containing the target answer. The same approach is used for all 21 trial characteristics selected for this study. Results We evaluated ExaCT using 50 previously unseen articles describing RCTs. The text classifier (first stage) was able to recover 88% of relevant sentences among its top five candidates (top5 recall) with the topmost candidate being relevant in 80% of cases (top1 precision). Precision and recall of the extraction rules (second stage) were 93% and 91%, respectively. Together, the two stages of the extraction engine were able to provide (partially) correct solutions in 992 out of 1050 test tasks (94%), with a majority of these (696) representing fully correct and complete answers. Conclusions Our experiments confirmed the applicability and efficacy of ExaCT. Furthermore, they demonstrated that combining a statistical method with 'weak' extraction rules can identify a variety of study characteristics. The system is flexible and can be extended to handle other characteristics and document types (e.g., study protocols).