Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25881112›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2015

Increasing the efficiency of trial-patient matching: automated clinical trial eligibility pre-screening for pediatric oncology patients.

Yizhao Ni, Jordan Wright, John Perentesis, Todd Lingren, Louise Deleger, Megan Kaiser, Isaac Kohane, Imre Solti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Artificial intelligence for optimizing recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Yizhao NiCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Department of Biomedical Informatics, 3333 Burnet Avenue, MLC 7024, Cincinnati, OH, USA. Yizhao.Ni@cchmc.org.
Jordan WrightCancer and Blood Disease Institute, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
John PerentesisCancer and Blood Disease Institute, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Todd LingrenCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Department of Biomedical Informatics, 3333 Burnet Avenue, MLC 7024, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Louise DelegerCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Department of Biomedical Informatics, 3333 Burnet Avenue, MLC 7024, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Megan KaiserCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Department of Biomedical Informatics, 3333 Burnet Avenue, MLC 7024, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Isaac KohaneCenter for Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Imre SoltiCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Department of Biomedical Informatics, 3333 Burnet Avenue, MLC 7024, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Funding

LCenter for Clinical and Translational Science and TrainingUL1TR001425 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI HEUBI, JAMES E., KISSELA, BRETT M · 2015 to 2024
$37.5M
Cincinnati Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences and TrainingUL1TR000077 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI HEUBI, JAMES E., TSEVAT, JOEL · 2012 to 2014
$9.9M
Better Outcomes for Children: GWAS & PheWAS in eMERGEII.U01HG006828 · NHGRI · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI HARLEY, JOHN BARKER, HOLM, INGRID ADELE · 2012 to 2014
$4.0M
Increasing Clinical Trial Enrollment: A Semi-Automated Patient Centered ApproachR00LM010227 · NLM · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI SOLTI, IMRE · 2010 to 2012
$727k
EHR-based patient safety: Automated error detection in neonatal intensive careR21HD072883 · NICHD · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI SOLTI, IMRE · 2012 to 2013
$407k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000077NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001425NHGRI NIH HHS 1U01HG006828-01NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG006828NICHD NIH HHS 1R21HD072883-01NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD072883NLM NIH HHS 5R00LM010227-05NLM NIH HHS R00 LM010227
6 · The paper itself

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

Natural Language ProcessingPatient SelectionChildClinical Trials as TopicEligibility DeterminationHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID25881112
PMCPMC4407835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.