
Feature|Articles|September 14, 2026
The Execution Gap: Why Clinical Trial Infrastructure Has to Be Built Before AI Can Deliver
Author(s)Andy Studna, Senior Editor
Clinical trials have spent decades perfecting data capture, but the execution layer underneath it, including decision workflows, data collection design, and lab connectivity, remains fragmented in ways that limit what AI can realistically deliver and that quietly compromise the scientific validity of the data itself.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Clinical research has built sophisticated infrastructure for capturing and storing trial data, but the workflows, design decisions, and connective architecture that determine whether that data is trustworthy and actionable have lagged behind. Artificial intelligence (AI) is arriving on top of a foundation that, in many places, has not yet been completed.
Related to this article

Most AI pilots in drug development fail not from poor technology but from lack of strategic prioritization, organizational readiness, integrated data infrastructure, and disciplined governance, making success dependent on business discipline rather than technical capability.

In this video interview, Claire Riches, VP of clinical solutions at Citeline, offers practical guidance for clinical operations teams beginning their AI journey—making the case that the tools are more accessible than many assume and that waiting to start is a competitive risk in itself.

AI agents in clinical operations acquire broader autonomous capability through expanded permissions, tools, memory, and delegated authority, requiring governance focused on whether effective capability has shifted outside approved boundaries rather than whether software has changed.

RWE is finding a role earlier in drug development than ever before, but the data quality, integration, and organizational alignment required to make it regulatory-grade are still catching up to the ambition.

In rare disease drug development where no registry or natural history dataset exists, real-world evidence quality depends on treating evidence engineering as a design-stage decision, defining intended regulatory use and standardizing endpoints, harmonization, and data provenance upfront rather than reconciling gaps after collection.

In this episode of Beyond Compliance, Otis Johnson, PhD, MPA, founder and principal consultant at Vantix Operations, speaks with Cecilia Xi, PhD, VP of clinical and scientific affairs at Vivalink, about why defensible trial data depends on traceability, platform ownership, and device strategy long after a study ends.

Decentralized trial models have demonstrated real gains in enrollment performance and patient access, but operational switching costs, fragmented technology stacks, and unresolved gaps in the patient-site relationship raise a question the industry has been slow to confront directly.
Advertisement
Advertisement

