ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2016
Automatic data source identification for clinical trial eligibility criteria resolution.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking Large Language Models from Open and Closed Source Models to Apply Data Annotation for Free-Text Criteria in Healthcare.Future internet · 2025Article
- Sociotechnical feasibility of natural language processing-driven tools in clinical trial eligibility prescreening for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence Applied to clinical trials: opportunities and challenges.Health and technology · 2023Review
- Automated NLP Extraction of Clinical Rationale for Treatment Discontinuation in Breast Cancer.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2021Article
- Amplifying Domain Expertise in Clinical Data Pipelines.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
- Digital tools for the recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a systematic map.Trials · 2020Review
- Use of Natural Language Processing to Extract Clinical Cancer Phenotypes from Electronic Medical Records.Cancer research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical trial coordinators refer to both structured and unstructured sources of data when evaluating a subject for eligibility. While some eligibility criteria can be resolved using structured data, some require manual review of clinical notes. An important step in automating the trial screening process is to be able to identify the right data source for resolving each criterion. In this work, we discuss the creation of an eligibility criteria dataset for clinical trials for patients with two disparate diseases, annotated with the preferred data source for each criterion (i.e., structured or unstructured) by annotators with medical training. The dataset includes 50 heart-failure trials with a total of 766 eligibility criteria and 50 trials for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with 677 criteria. Further, we developed machine learning models to predict the preferred data source: kernel methods outperform simpler learning models when used with a combination of lexical, syntactic, semantic, and surface features. Evaluation of these models indicates that the performance is consistent across data from both diagnoses, indicating generalizability of our method. Our findings are an important step towards ongoing efforts for automation of clinical trial screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28269912PMC5333255What 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.