Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40587839›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025

Proposal for Using AI to Assess Clinical Data Integrity and Generate Metadata: Algorithm Development and Validation.

Caroline Bönisch, Christian Schmidt, Dorothea Kesztyüs, Hans A Kestler, Tibor Kesztyüs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Caroline BönischDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, University of Applied Sciences Stralsund, Zur Schwedenschanze 15, Stralsund, 18435, Germany, 49 3831 45 6505.ORCID 0000-0001-7169-6090
Christian SchmidtMedical Data Integration Center Göttingen, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9010-2080
Dorothea KesztyüsMedical Data Integration Center Göttingen, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2166-846X
Hans A KestlerInstitute of Medical Systems Biology, Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4759-5254
Tibor KesztyüsMedical Data Integration Center Göttingen, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0813-2393

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Evidence-based medicine combines scientific research, clinical expertise, and patient preferences to enhance the patient outcomes and improve health care quality. Clinical data are crucial in aligning medical decisions with evidence-based practices, whether derived from systematic research or real-world data sources. Quality assurance of clinical data, mainly through predictive quality algorithms and machine learning, is essential to mitigate risks such as misdiagnosis, inappropriate treatment, bias, and compromised patient safety. Furthermore, excellent quality of clinical data is a prerequisite for the replication of research results in order to gain insights from practice and real-world evidence. Objective: This study aims to demonstrate the varying quality of medical data in primary clinical source systems at a maximum care university hospital and provide researchers with insights into data reliability through predictive quality algorithms using machine learning techniques. Methods: A literature review was conducted to evaluate existing approaches to automated quality prediction. In addition, embedded in the process of integrating care data into a medical data integration center (MeDIC), metadata relevant to this clinical data was stored, considering factors such as data granularity and quality metrics. Completed patient cases with echocardiographic and laboratory findings as well as medication histories were selected from 2001 to 2023. Two authors manually reviewed the datasets and assigned a quality score for each entry, with 0 indicating unsatisfactory and 1 satisfactory quality. Since quality control was considered a binary problem, corresponding classifiers were used for the quality prediction. Logistic regression, k-nearest neighbors, a naive bayes classifier, a decision tree classifier, a random forest classifier, extreme gradient boosting (XGB), and support vector machines (SVM) were selected as machine learning algorithms. Based on preprocessing the dataset, training machine learning algorithms on echocardiographic, laboratory, and medication data, and assessing various prediction models, the most effective algorithms for quality classification were to be identified. The performance of the predictive quality algorithms was assessed based on accuracy, precision, recall, and scoring. Results: There were 450 patient cases with complete information extracted from the MeDIC data pool. The laboratory and medication datasets had to be limited to 4000 data entries each to enable manual review; the echocardiographic datasets comprised 750 examinations. XGB demonstrated the highest performance for the echocardiographic dataset with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 84.6%. For laboratory data, SVM achieved an AUC-ROC score of 89.8%, demonstrating superior discrimination performance. Finally, regarding the medication dataset, SVM showed the most balanced performance, achieving an AUC-ROC of 65.1%, the highest of all tested models. Conclusions: This proposal presents a template for predicting data quality and incorporating the resulting quality information into the metadata of a data integration center, a concept not previously implemented. The model was deployed for data inspection using a hybrid approach that combines the trained model with conventional inspection methods.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceData AccuracyMachine LearningMetadataHumansReproducibility of ResultsaccuracyAIalgorithmartificial intelligenceclinical datadata integritydata qualitydevelopmentinteroperabilityliterature reviewmachine learningmetadatamodelqualityreliabilityutilizationvalidation

Identifiers

PMID40587839
PMCPMC12234397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.