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

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 manage...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Richard Gebler, Ines Reinecke, Martin Sedlmayr, Miriam Goldammer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: JMIR Publications 2025-08-01
Series:Journal of Medical Internet Research
Online Access:https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e74976
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849247763736297472
author Richard Gebler
Ines Reinecke
Martin Sedlmayr
Miriam Goldammer
author_facet Richard Gebler
Ines Reinecke
Martin Sedlmayr
Miriam Goldammer
author_sort Richard Gebler
collection DOAJ
description 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.
format Article
id doaj-art-e87622ae961e45f18d4634f7668e5b63
institution Kabale University
issn 1438-8871
language English
publishDate 2025-08-01
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format Article
series Journal of Medical Internet Research
spelling doaj-art-e87622ae961e45f18d4634f7668e5b632025-08-20T03:58:08ZengJMIR PublicationsJournal of Medical Internet Research1438-88712025-08-0127e7497610.2196/74976Enhancing Clinical Data Infrastructure for AI Research: Comparative Evaluation of Data Management ArchitecturesRichard Geblerhttps://orcid.org/0009-0004-1543-9769Ines Reineckehttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0154-2867Martin Sedlmayrhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9888-8460Miriam Goldammerhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2126-290X 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.https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e74976
spellingShingle Richard Gebler
Ines Reinecke
Martin Sedlmayr
Miriam Goldammer
Enhancing Clinical Data Infrastructure for AI Research: Comparative Evaluation of Data Management Architectures
Journal of Medical Internet Research
title Enhancing Clinical Data Infrastructure for AI Research: Comparative Evaluation of Data Management Architectures
title_full Enhancing Clinical Data Infrastructure for AI Research: Comparative Evaluation of Data Management Architectures
title_fullStr Enhancing Clinical Data Infrastructure for AI Research: Comparative Evaluation of Data Management Architectures
title_full_unstemmed Enhancing Clinical Data Infrastructure for AI Research: Comparative Evaluation of Data Management Architectures
title_short Enhancing Clinical Data Infrastructure for AI Research: Comparative Evaluation of Data Management Architectures
title_sort enhancing clinical data infrastructure for ai research comparative evaluation of data management architectures
url https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e74976
work_keys_str_mv AT richardgebler enhancingclinicaldatainfrastructureforairesearchcomparativeevaluationofdatamanagementarchitectures
AT inesreinecke enhancingclinicaldatainfrastructureforairesearchcomparativeevaluationofdatamanagementarchitectures
AT martinsedlmayr enhancingclinicaldatainfrastructureforairesearchcomparativeevaluationofdatamanagementarchitectures
AT miriamgoldammer enhancingclinicaldatainfrastructureforairesearchcomparativeevaluationofdatamanagementarchitectures