ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2015
Increasing the efficiency of trial-patient matching: automated clinical trial eligibility pre-screening for pediatric oncology patients.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
72 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The usage of population and disease registries as pre-screening tools for clinical trials, a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Use of artificial intelligence for cancer clinical trial enrollment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review on natural language processing systems for eligibility prescreening in clinical research.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Pooled it
- TrialTriage, a Semiautonomous Prescreening Workflow for Resolving Ambiguity in Phase I Oncology Trial Eligibility: Development and Proof-of-Concept Study Using Synthetic Cases.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Blockchain technology for secure and efficient nephrology data management.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Review
- A Natural Language Processing Framework for Structuring and Visualizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria at Scale: Protocol for a Quantitative Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Development and Evaluation of a Human-in-the-Loop Data Curation Training Program to Support a Digital Clinical Trial Platform: Descriptive Feasibility Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- TrialMatchAI: an end-to-end AI-powered clinical trial recommendation system to streamline patient-to-trial matching.Nature communications · 2026Article
- AI-Driven Patient Screening for Clinical Trials in Pancreatic Cancer: The PANCR-AI Pilot Retrospective Comparative Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Transformer-based relation extraction and concept normalization using an annotated clinical trials corpus.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Application of explainable artificial intelligence integrating with electronic health record in oncology.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2026Review
- An Intelligent Trial Eligibility Screening Tool Using Natural Language Processing With a Block-Based Visual Programming Interface: Development and Usability Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Enhancing hepatopathy clinical trial efficiency: a secure, large language model-powered pre-screening pipeline.BioData mining · 2025Article
- Predicting therapeutic clinical trial enrollment for adult patients with low- and high-grade glioma using supervised machine learning.Science advances · 2025Article
- Enhancing Patient-Trial Matching With Large Language Models: A Scoping Review of Emerging Applications and Approaches.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Article
- A prospective pragmatic evaluation of automatic trial matching tools in a molecular tumor board.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Hybrid natural language processing tool for semantic annotation of medical texts in Spanish.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- "The Truth Is, We Must Miss Some": A Qualitative Study of the Patient Eligibility Screening Process, and Automation Perspectives, for Cancer Clinical Trials.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence for optimizing recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundManual eligibility screening (ES) for a clinical trial typically requires a labor-intensive review of patient records that utilizes many resources. Leveraging state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) and information extraction (IE) technologies, we sought to improve the efficiency of physician decision-making in clinical trial enrollment. In order to markedly reduce the pool of potential candidates for staff screening, we developed an automated ES algorithm to identify patients who meet core eligibility characteristics of an oncology clinical trial.
methodsWe collected narrative eligibility criteria from ClinicalTrials.gov for 55 clinical trials actively enrolling oncology patients in our institution between 12/01/2009 and 10/31/2011. In parallel, our ES algorithm extracted clinical and demographic information from the Electronic Health Record (EHR) data fields to represent profiles of all 215 oncology patients admitted to cancer treatment during the same period. The automated ES algorithm then matched the trial criteria with the patient profiles to identify potential trial-patient matches. Matching performance was validated on a reference set of 169 historical trial-patient enrollment decisions, and workload, precision, recall, negative predictive value (NPV) and specificity were calculated.
resultsWithout automation, an oncologist would need to review 163 patients per trial on average to replicate the historical patient enrollment for each trial. This workload is reduced by 85% to 24 patients when using automated ES (precision/recall/NPV/specificity: 12.6%/100.0%/100.0%/89.9%). Without automation, an oncologist would need to review 42 trials per patient on average to replicate the patient-trial matches that occur in the retrospective data set. With automated ES this workload is reduced by 90% to four trials (precision/recall/NPV/specificity: 35.7%/100.0%/100.0%/95.5%).
conclusionBy leveraging NLP and IE technologies, automated ES could dramatically increase the trial screening efficiency of oncologists and enable participation of small practices, which are often left out from trial enrollment. The algorithm has the potential to significantly reduce the effort to execute clinical research at a point in time when new initiatives of the cancer care community intend to greatly expand both the access to trials and the number of available trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.