ArticleJMIR medical informatics2021
Anomaly Detection Algorithm for Real-World Data and Evidence in Clinical Research: Implementation, Evaluation, and Validation Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting postoperative delirium after lung cancer resection: the utility of synthetic data and LIME algorithm for model interpretation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Central statistical monitoring in clinical trial management: A scoping review.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2025Article
- Achieving health equity in immune disease: leveraging big data and artificial intelligence in an evolving health system landscape.Frontiers in big data · 2025Review
- Article
- Applying Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Clinical Trials: Potential Impacts and Obstacles.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2024Article
- Survey of Satisfaction and Utility of an Application to Find Inconsistencies in Trauma Registry Data.Journal of registry management · 2024Article
- Detecting anomalies in smart wearables for hypertension: a deep learning mechanism.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Smartphone and Wearable Sensors for the Estimation of Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy Disease Severity: Cross-sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Off-targetP ML: an open source machine learning framework for off-target panel safety assessment of small molecules.Journal of cheminformatics · 2022Article
- An Introduction to Machine Learning Approaches for Biomedical Research.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStatistical analysis, which has become an integral part of evidence-based medicine, relies heavily on data quality that is of critical importance in modern clinical research. Input data are not only at risk of being falsified or fabricated, but also at risk of being mishandled by investigators.
objectiveThe urgent need to assure the highest data quality possible has led to the implementation of various auditing strategies designed to monitor clinical trials and detect errors of different origin that frequently occur in the field. The objective of this study was to describe a machine learning-based algorithm to detect anomalous patterns in data created as a consequence of carelessness, systematic error, or intentionally by entering fabricated values.
methodsA particular electronic data capture (EDC) system, which is used for data management in clinical registries, is presented including its architecture and data structure. This EDC system features an algorithm based on machine learning designed to detect anomalous patterns in quantitative data. The detection algorithm combines clustering with a series of 7 distance metrics that serve to determine the strength of an anomaly. For the detection process, the thresholds and combinations of the metrics were used and the detection performance was evaluated and validated in the experiments involving simulated anomalous data and real-world data.
resultsFive different clinical registries related to neuroscience were presented-all of them running in the given EDC system. Two of the registries were selected for the evaluation experiments and served also to validate the detection performance on an independent data set. The best performing combination of the distance metrics was that of Canberra, Manhattan, and Mahalanobis, whereas Cosine and Chebyshev metrics had been excluded from further analysis due to the lowest performance when used as single distance metric-based classifiers.
conclusionsThe experimental results demonstrate that the algorithm is universal in nature, and as such may be implemented in other EDC systems, and is capable of anomalous data detection with a sensitivity exceeding 85%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.