Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36688707›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the National Cancer Institute2023

Use of artificial intelligence for cancer clinical trial enrollment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ronald Chow, Julie Midroni, Jagdeep Kaur, Gabriel Boldt, Geoffrey Liu, Lawson Eng, Fei-Fei Liu, Benjamin Haibe-Kains, Michael Lock, Srinivas Raman

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ronald ChowPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6195-8624
Julie MidroniPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jagdeep KaurLondon Regional Cancer Program, London Health Sciences Centre, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Gabriel BoldtLondon Regional Cancer Program, London Health Sciences Centre, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Geoffrey LiuPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2603-7296
Lawson EngPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Fei-Fei LiuPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4344-6486
Benjamin Haibe-KainsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Michael LockLondon Regional Cancer Program, London Health Sciences Centre, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Srinivas RamanPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
University Health Network · CAWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) for cancer clinical trial enrollment and its predictive accuracy in identifying eligible patients for inclusion in such trials.

methodsDatabases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched until June 2022. Articles were included if they reported on AI actively being used in the clinical trial enrollment process. Narrative synthesis was conducted among all extracted data: accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. For studies where the 2x2 contingency table could be calculated or supplied by authors, a meta-analysis to calculate summary statistics was conducted using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics curve model.

resultsTen articles reporting on more than 50 000 patients in 19 datasets were included. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity exceeded 80% in all but 1 dataset. Positive predictive value exceeded 80% in 5 of 17 datasets. Negative predictive value exceeded 80% in all datasets. Summary sensitivity was 90.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 70.9% to 97.4%); summary specificity was 99.3% (95% CI = 81.8% to 99.9%).

conclusionsAI demonstrated comparable, if not superior, performance to manual screening for patient enrollment into cancer clinical trials. As well, AI is highly efficient, requiring less time and human resources to screen patients. AI should be further investigated and implemented for patient recruitment into cancer clinical trials. Future research should validate the use of AI for clinical trials enrollment in less resource-rich regions and ensure broad inclusion for generalizability to all sexes, ages, and ethnicities.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNeoplasmsHumansPredictive Value of TestsROC CurveSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID36688707
PMCPMC10086633
OpenAlexW4317781007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.