What this category's data looks like
In the research ethics review scenario, materials center on ethics review applications, informed consent form templates, and risk assessment forms, accompanied by signature pages and receipts. Sources are mostly institutional template libraries, historical batches, and revision notes, with update cadence driven by regulatory adjustments, protocol changes, and annual re-reviews. Field characteristics focus on subject names, sample quantities, dates, version numbers, and signature fields. When materials enter this feature, the review application assumes the role of the primary record, the informed consent form template assumes the role of external commitment, the risk assessment form assumes the role of risk determination, and the signature page and receipt assume the role of effective evidence. For the same record, the name, quantity, and date in the application and the consent form must be consistent, and the version number and references must be synchronized.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate snippets and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, rerank, filter, and limit trimming). The version ledger and change records are completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Ethics review application | Fields, dates, and signatures must be aligned item by item with the informed consent form template, and version numbers must be consistent | In the search test, switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, or hybrid, and verify the name, quantity, date, and signature fields in the candidate snippets |
| Informed consent form template | The name, quantity, and date of the same record must not conflict with the application or risk assessment form, and old versions must be traceable | Test once each with synonym-rewritten questions, compare the number of candidates and scores, and enable usingReRank to inspect the ranking of the top few results |
| Risk assessment form | Risk level, assessment date, and signature receipt must be synchronized with the application and consent form | Verify the number and content completeness of returned references, record the array length separately, and check whether key snippets are retained after limit trimming |
| Version ledger and change records | The current version is unique, old versions are traceable, and references are synchronized | After changing one piece of content, check whether the version number and references are updated synchronously, and use similarity to filter out low-relevance candidates |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The same subject name does not match between the application and the consent form. Cause: The two materials were imported separately without field-level alignment.
- Symptom: The risk assessment form date differs from the application date by several days. Cause: Versions were not synchronized, and the old version is still being recalled.
- Symptom: The consent form lacks a signature or receipt. Cause: The signature page was not stored together with the template, and was omitted after reference trimming.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: Test once each with synonym-rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then toggle rerank to inspect the ranking of the top few results.
Business test: Change one piece of content and check whether the version number and references are updated synchronously.
- In the search test, switch
searchModeand confirm that both semantic and full-text candidates are merged and returned. - Verify the number of references and the
limittrimming results, and check whether key snippets are retained aftersimilarityfiltering.