Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37952206›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024

AutoCriteria: a generalizable clinical trial eligibility criteria extraction system powered by large language models.

Surabhi Datta, Kyeryoung Lee, Hunki Paek, Frank J Manion, Nneka Ofoegbu, Jingcheng Du, Ying Li, Liang-Chin Huang, Jingqi Wang, Bin Lin and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Illuminating the landscape of high-level clinical trial opportunities in the All of Us Research Program.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

12 authors.

Surabhi DattaMelax Technologies, Houston, TX 77030, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5634-2005
Kyeryoung LeeMelax Technologies, Houston, TX 77030, United States.
Hunki PaekMelax Technologies, Houston, TX 77030, United States.
Frank J ManionMelax Technologies, Houston, TX 77030, United States.
Nneka OfoegbuMelax Technologies, Houston, TX 77030, United States.
Jingcheng DuMelax Technologies, Houston, TX 77030, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0322-4566
Ying LiRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, NY 10591, United States.
Liang-Chin HuangMelax Technologies, Houston, TX 77030, United States.
Jingqi WangMelax Technologies, Houston, TX 77030, United States.
Bin LinMelax Technologies, Houston, TX 77030, United States.
Hua XuYale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06511, United States.
Xiaoyan WangMelax Technologies, Houston, TX 77030, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe aim to build a generalizable information extraction system leveraging large language models to extract granular eligibility criteria information for diverse diseases from free text clinical trial protocol documents. We investigate the model's capability to extract criteria entities along with contextual attributes including values, temporality, and modifiers and present the strengths and limitations of this system. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe clinical trial data were acquired from https://ClinicalTrials.gov/. We developed a system, AutoCriteria, which comprises the following modules: preprocessing, knowledge ingestion, prompt modeling based on GPT, postprocessing, and interim evaluation. The final system evaluation was performed, both quantitatively and qualitatively, on 180 manually annotated trials encompassing 9 diseases.

resultsAutoCriteria achieves an overall F1 score of 89.42 across all 9 diseases in extracting the criteria entities, with the highest being 95.44 for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and the lowest of 84.10 for breast cancer. Its overall accuracy is 78.95% in identifying all contextual information across all diseases. Our thematic analysis indicated accurate logic interpretation of criteria as one of the strengths and overlooking/neglecting the main criteria as one of the weaknesses of AutoCriteria. DISCUSSION: AutoCriteria demonstrates strong potential to extract granular eligibility criteria information from trial documents without requiring manual annotations. The prompts developed for AutoCriteria generalize well across different disease areas. Our evaluation suggests that the system handles complex scenarios including multiple arm conditions and logics.

conclusionAutoCriteria currently encompasses a diverse range of diseases and holds potential to extend to more in the future. This signifies a generalizable and scalable solution, poised to address the complexities of clinical trial application in real-world settings.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsNatural Language ProcessingEligibility DeterminationFemaleHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalLanguageclinical trial eligibility criteriaGPT-4information extractionlarge language modelnatural language processingzero-shot prompting

Identifiers

PMID37952206
PMCPMC10797270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.