What data for this category looks like
Data sources for medical aesthetics intelligent due diligence reports include: local health commission medical aesthetics institution practice qualification filings, medical aesthetics project pricing and medical insurance filing announcements, regulatory department compliance penalty records, internal medical record archives of institutions, and third-party public review data for medical aesthetics services. Update schedule: Regulatory data is synchronized quarterly, operational and project data submitted by institutions is updated monthly, and public review data is crawled in real time. A single report includes four structured modules: basic institution information, project compliance, risk alerts, and user feedback. Fields include institution name, practice license number, list of filed projects, penalty records, and average user rating. Penalty records are measured in "times", filed projects are measured in "items", and user ratings are measured in "points".
What constraints these characteristics impose on deployment and upgrade
Multiple heterogeneous data sources and differing update schedules require configuring differentiated scheduled tasks for multi-source data synchronization during deployment, to adapt to the three update frequencies of quarterly, monthly, and real time. The structured multi-module document structure requires pre-configuring cross-data source field mapping rules to align fields from different sources to the standard field system of due diligence reports. Real-time crawled public review data requires configuring API call quotas to avoid rate limiting from third-party platforms. Dynamic updates to medical aesthetics project filing fields require supporting no-code adjustments to field mappings during upgrades, without needing to redeploy core services. Bulk due diligence report generation scenarios require reserving sufficient memory and storage resources to handle the stitching and output of multiple structured documents.
How to set the configurations
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDS | 300 seconds | A single medical aesthetics due diligence report includes multiple high-definition qualification scans and archived documents, requiring sufficient time for text parsing |
UPLOAD_FILE_MAX_SIZE | 500 MB | Adapts to the maximum single file size limit for multiple qualification documents and medical records submitted by medical aesthetics institutions |
RECALL_TOP_N | Top 10 entries | Must cover multi-source compliance records and review data to ensure comprehensive information in due diligence reports |
RERANK_TOP_N | Top 5 entries | Filters precise compliance and review data to avoid redundant information interfering with report generation |
DATA_SYNC_CRON_EXPRESSION | Differentiated values per data source: regulatory data uses 0 0 2 * * *, institutional data uses 0 0 1 * * 1, public data uses */30 * * * * | Adapts to update schedules of different data sources and reduces unnecessary synchronization overhead |
maxContext | 8000–12000 characters | Medical aesthetics due diligence reports include multiple structured fields, requiring sufficient context to complete accurate field mapping and stitching |
The parameter values provided on this page are common starting points for configuration. Actual values are affected by material format, data volume, and business rules. Specific issues require case-by-case analysis, and it is recommended to test on your own samples before finalizing settings.
Three common mistakes
- Phenomenon: Persistently high disk read/write activity occurs after Docker deployment, with total read/write volume exceeding normal thresholds within a single day. Cause: Differentiated data synchronization cycles are not configured, and full real-time synchronization is performed for public review data, frequently triggering read/write operations on databases and storage.
- Phenomenon: Some structured fields are missing or have incorrect formatting in generated due diligence reports. Cause: Cross-data source field alignment rules are not pre-configured, and original field names and formats from data sources are used directly.
- Phenomenon: Timeout errors occur when parsing qualification documents. Cause: The set
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDSvalue is insufficient to handle text parsing for multiple high-definition scans.
How to confirm proper configuration
- Run a single due diligence report generation process, verify that parsed fields align with standard report modules, and confirm that field mapping configurations take effect.
- Check data synchronization task logs to confirm that synchronization cycles for different data sources match the preset
DATA_SYNC_CRON_EXPRESSIONconfiguration. - Test upload and parsing of multiple qualification documents, confirm that parsing time does not exceed the configured
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDSvalue. - View system resource monitoring panels to confirm that disk read/write volume is within normal ranges, with no unnecessary high-frequency read/write operations.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-09-14.