Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36923325›Full record

ReviewHealth and technology2023

Artificial Intelligence Applied to clinical trials: opportunities and challenges.

Scott Askin, Denis Burkhalter, Gilda Calado, Samar El Dakrouni

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health and technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

96 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. When evidence meets artificial intelligence.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

36 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

4 authors.

Scott AskinMassachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (MCPHS), 179 Longwood Ave, 02115 Boston, MA USA.
Denis BurkhalterMassachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (MCPHS), 179 Longwood Ave, 02115 Boston, MA USA.
Gilda CaladoMassachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (MCPHS), 179 Longwood Ave, 02115 Boston, MA USA.
Samar El DakrouniMassachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (MCPHS), 179 Longwood Ave, 02115 Boston, MA USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Clinical Trials (CTs) remain the foundation of safe and effective drug development. Given the evolving data-driven and personalized medicine approach in healthcare, it is imperative for companies and regulators to utilize tailored Artificial Intelligence (AI) solutions that enable expeditious and streamlined clinical research. In this paper, we identified opportunities, challenges, and potential implications of AI in CTs. Methods: Following an extensive search in relevant databases and websites, we gathered publications tackling the use of AI and Machine Learning (ML) in CTs from the past 5 years in the US and Europe, including Regulatory Authorities' documents. Results: Documented applications of AI commonly concern the oncology field and are mostly being applied in the area of recruitment. Main opportunities discussed aim to create efficiencies across CT activities, including the ability to reduce sample sizes, improve enrollment and conduct faster, more optimized adaptive CTs. While AI is an area of enthusiastic development, the identified challenges are ethical in nature and relate to data availability, standards, and most importantly, lack of regulatory guidance hindering the acceptance of AI tools in drug development. However, future implications are significant and are anticipated to improve the probability of success, reduce trial burden and overall, speed up research and regulatory approval. Conclusion: The use of AI in CTs is in its relative infancy; however, it is a fast-evolving field. As regulators provide more guidance on the acceptability of AI in specific areas, we anticipate the scope of use to broaden and the volume of implementation to increase rapidly.

Indexed as

Artificial Intelligence (AI)ChallengesClinical trials (CT)ImplicationsMachine learning (ML)Opportunities

Identifiers

PMID36923325
PMCPMC9974218

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.