Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37041475›Full record

Observational studyBMC medical research methodology2023

Piloting an automated clinical trial eligibility surveillance and provider alert system based on artificial intelligence and standard data models.

Stéphane M Meystre, Paul M Heider, Andrew Cates, Grace Bastian, Tara Pittman, Stephanie Gentilin, Teresa J Kelechi

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Artificial intelligence for optimizing recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Clinical Research Informatics: a Decade-in-Review.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024
    Review
  17. Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2023.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Digital Tools and Strategies for Engaging Patients in Cancer Clinical Trials.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
    Review
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

7 authors.

Stéphane M MeystreOnePlanet Research Center and imec, Toernooiveld 300, Nijmegen, 6525 EC, The Netherlands. stephane.meystre@imec.nl.
Paul M HeiderMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Andrew CatesMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Grace BastianMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Tara PittmanMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Stephanie GentilinMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Teresa J KelechiMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.

Funding

South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR001450 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T., FLUME, PATRICK A · 2015 to 2024
$41.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001450
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo advance new therapies into clinical care, clinical trials must recruit enough participants. Yet, many trials fail to do so, leading to delays, early trial termination, and wasted resources. Under-enrolling trials make it impossible to draw conclusions about the efficacy of new therapies. An oft-cited reason for insufficient enrollment is lack of study team and provider awareness about patient eligibility. Automating clinical trial eligibility surveillance and study team and provider notification could offer a solution.

methodsTo address this need for an automated solution, we conducted an observational pilot study of our TAES (TriAl Eligibility Surveillance) system. We tested the hypothesis that an automated system based on natural language processing and machine learning algorithms could detect patients eligible for specific clinical trials by linking the information extracted from trial descriptions to the corresponding clinical information in the electronic health record (EHR). To evaluate the TAES information extraction and matching prototype (i.e., TAES prototype), we selected five open cardiovascular and cancer trials at the Medical University of South Carolina and created a new reference standard of 21,974 clinical text notes from a random selection of 400 patients (including at least 100 enrolled in the selected trials), with a small subset of 20 notes annotated in detail. We also developed a simple web interface for a new database that stores all trial eligibility criteria, corresponding clinical information, and trial-patient match characteristics using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) common data model. Finally, we investigated options for integrating an automated clinical trial eligibility system into the EHR and for notifying health care providers promptly of potential patient eligibility without interrupting their clinical workflow.

resultsAlthough the rapidly implemented TAES prototype achieved only moderate accuracy (recall up to 0.778; precision up to 1.000), it enabled us to assess options for integrating an automated system successfully into the clinical workflow at a healthcare system.

conclusionsOnce optimized, the TAES system could exponentially enhance identification of patients potentially eligible for clinical trials, while simultaneously decreasing the burden on research teams of manual EHR review. Through timely notifications, it could also raise physician awareness of patient eligibility for clinical trials.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNatural Language ProcessingHumansMachine LearningPatient SelectionPilot ProjectsClinical trial enrollment/recruitmentData science [L01.305]Medical informatics [L01.313.500]Natural language processing (NLP) [L01.224.050.375.580]

Identifiers

PMID37041475
PMCPMC10088225

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.