ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2023
Towards Fair Patient-Trial Matching via Patient-Criterion Level Fairness Constraint.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in clinical trial participant recruitment and retention: A scoping review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Review
- AI-augmented frameworks for enhancing Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: A memory clinic perspective.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2025Article
- Impact of lens autofluorescence and opacification on retinal imaging.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Large Language Models for Healthcare Data Augmentation: An Example on Patient-Trial Matching.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2023Article
- Multi-Task Learning for Post-transplant Cause of Death Analysis: A Case Study on Liver Transplant.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical trials are indispensable in developing new treatments, but they face obstacles in patient recruitment and retention, hindering the enrollment of necessary participants. To tackle these challenges, deep learning frameworks have been created to match patients to trials. These frameworks calculate the similarity between patients and clinical trial eligibility criteria, considering the discrepancy between inclusion and exclusion criteria. Recent studies have shown that these frameworks outperform earlier approaches. However, deep learning models may raise fairness issues in patient-trial matching when certain sensitive groups of individuals are underrepresented in clinical trials, leading to incomplete or inaccurate data and potential harm. To tackle the issue of fairness, this work proposes a fair patient-trial matching framework by generating a patient-criterion level fairness constraint. The proposed framework considers the inconsistency between the embedding of inclusion and exclusion criteria among patients of different sensitive groups. The experimental results on real-world patient-trial and patient-criterion matching tasks demonstrate that the proposed framework can successfully alleviate the predictions that tend to be biased.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38222427PMC10785912W4361189042What 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.