ArticleBMC research notes2026
Protocol deviation outlier estimation combined with generative AI.
Article in BMC research notes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Readiness in Clinical Trial Operations: A Narrative Review and Site-Level Governance Framework.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveProtocol deviations (PDs) are critical indicators of data quality and operational risk in clinical trials. Systematic under- or over-reporting of PDs at investigator sites can obscure true trial performance and compromise regulatory compliance. The goal of this paper is to present an integrated approach combining statistical outlier detection with generative AI-powered content analysis for detecting and characterizing outlier sites in PD reporting, enabling proactive risk management and targeted site oversight.
resultsIn this study, the simaerep bootstrap algorithm was applied across 578 clinical studies encompassing 39,936 sites. It is shown that the method successfully identifies sites exhibiting statistically significant deviations from expected PD reporting rates, flagging both potential under-reporters and high-rate reporters. In addition, generative AI combined with hierarchical clustering automatically categorized diverse PD narratives into a validated taxonomy of 15 major categories and 47 specific topics through a "human-in-the-loop" refinement process with clinical operations experts. Independent validation of the GenAI topic classification using an "LLM-as-judge" approach achieved 88.7% accuracy (95% CI: 86.5%–90.6%). This integrated capability equips clinical operations teams to identify sites warranting further investigation and determine whether observed deviation patterns are study-systemic, country-specific, or site-specific, ultimately improving data integrity and risk-based audit strategy.
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.