Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40749197›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Enhancing Clinical Data Infrastructure for AI Research: Comparative Evaluation of Data Management Architectures.

Richard Gebler, Ines Reinecke, Martin Sedlmayr, Miriam Goldammer

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The potential of artificial intelligence in clinical trials.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
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

4 authors.

Richard GeblerFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1543-9769
Ines ReineckeData Integration Center, Center for Medical Informatics, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus at Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0154-2867
Martin SedlmayrFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9888-8460
Miriam GoldammerFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2126-290X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rapid growth of clinical data, driven by digital technologies and high-resolution sensors, presents significant challenges for health care organizations aiming to support advanced artificial intelligence research and improve patient care. Traditional data management approaches may struggle to handle the large, diverse, and rapidly updating datasets prevalent in modern clinical environments.

objectiveThis study aimed to compare 3 clinical data management architectures-clinical data warehouses, clinical data lakes, and clinical data lakehouses-by analyzing their performance using the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) principles and the big data 5 V's (volume, variety, velocity, veracity, and value). The aim was to provide guidance on selecting an architecture that balances robust data governance with the flexibility required for advanced analytics.

methodsWe developed a comprehensive analysis framework that integrates aspects of data governance with technical performance criteria. A rapid literature review was conducted to synthesize evidence from multiple studies, focusing on how each architecture manages large, heterogeneous, and dynamically updating clinical data. The review assessed key dimensions such as scalability, real-time processing capabilities, metadata consistency, and the technical expertise required for implementation and maintenance.

resultsThe results show that clinical data warehouses offer strong data governance, stability, and structured reporting, making them well suited for environments that require strict compliance and reliable analysis. However, they are limited in terms of real-time processing and scalability. In contrast, clinical data lakes offer greater flexibility and cost-effective scalability for managing heterogeneous data types, although they may suffer from inconsistent metadata management and challenges in maintaining data quality. Clinical data lakehouses combine the strengths of both approaches by supporting real-time data ingestion and structured querying; however, their hybrid nature requires high technical expertise and involves complex integration efforts.

conclusionsThe optimal data management architecture for clinical applications depends on an organization's specific needs, available resources, and strategic goals. Health care institutions need to weigh the trade-offs between robust data governance, operational flexibility, and scalability to build future-proof infrastructures that support both clinical operations and artificial intelligence research. Further research should focus on simplifying the complexity of hybrid models and improving the integration of clinical standards to improve overall system reliability and ease of implementation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceData ManagementHumansbig data in health careclinical data managementdata architecture evaluationdata lakedata lakehousedata warehouse

Identifiers

PMID40749197
PMCPMC12357119

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.