ArticleNew microbes and new infections2024
Automated data collection tool for real-world cohort studies of chronic hepatitis B: Leveraging OCR and NLP technologies for improved efficiency.
Article in New microbes and new infections, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Privacy-by-Design Framework for Large Language Model Chatbots in Urology.International neurourology journal · 2025Article
- Transforming Chinese cohort studies through artificial intelligence: a new era of population health research.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Collecting and standardizing clinical research data is a very tedious task. This study is to develop an intelligent data collection tool, named CHB-EDC, for real-world cohort studies of chronic hepatitis B (CHB), which can assist in standardized and efficient data collection. Methods: CHB_EDC is capable of automatically processing various formats of data, including raw data in image format, using internationally recognized data standards, OCR, and NLP models. It can automatically populate the data into eCRFs designed in the REDCap system, supporting the integration of patient data from electronic medical record systems through commonly used web application interfaces. This tool enables intelligent extraction and aggregation of data, as well as secure and anonymous data sharing. Results: For non-electronic data collection, the average accuracy of manual collection was 98.65 %, with an average time of 63.64 min to collect information for one patient. The average accuracy CHB-EDC was 98.66 %, with an average time of 3.57 min to collect information for one patient. In the same data collection task, CHB-EDC achieved a comparable average accuracy to manual collection. However, in terms of time, CHB-EDC significantly outperformed manual collection (p < 0.05). Our research has significantly reduced the required collection time and lowered the cost of data collection while ensuring accuracy. Conclusion: The tool has significantly improved the efficiency of data collection while ensuring accuracy, enabling standardized collection of real-world data.
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.