Metrics That Actually Matter for CTCAE Automation

Introduction: Measuring the Right Things

Organizations often struggle to evaluate CTCAE automation because they focus on the wrong metrics. Accuracy alone is insufficient, and raw usage statistics are misleading.

Meaningful evaluation requires metrics that reflect workflow, quality, and safety.

Process Metrics: Reducing Friction

Time to complete adverse event documentation, frequency of manual rework, and proportion of suggested events accepted or modified all reveal how well automation fits real workflows.

If documentation takes longer after deployment, the system is failing regardless of theoretical accuracy.

Quality Metrics: Consistency and Agreement

Inter-rater agreement is a powerful indicator. Improvements in consistency across users or sites suggest that automation is stabilizing grading practices.

Tracking late-discovered serious events can also reveal whether automation is improving early detection.

Human Trust as a Metric

User trust is measurable. Short surveys and qualitative feedback reveal whether clinicians feel supported or surveilled. Declining trust predicts disengagement.

Ignoring sentiment is a common mistake.

Using Metrics to Improve, Not Punish

Metrics should guide improvement, not blame. When used constructively, they help teams tune workflows, refine training, and adjust logic. Measurement is only valuable when paired with action.