ArticleBMC cancer2024
Evaluation of an artificial intelligence-based clinical trial matching system in Chinese patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2024. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- The role of AI in oncology: present applications and future horizons.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Review
- AI-Driven Patient Screening for Clinical Trials in Pancreatic Cancer: The PANCR-AI Pilot Retrospective Comparative Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in clinical trial participant recruitment and retention: A scoping review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Review
- Natural Language Processing in Support of Evidence-based Medicine: A Scoping Review.Findings of ACL. ACL · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)-assisted clinical trial screening is a promising prospect, although previous matching systems were developed in English, and relevant studies have only been conducted in Western countries. Therefore, we evaluated an AI-based clinical trial matching system (CTMS) that extracts medical data from the electronic health record system and matches them to clinical trials automatically.
methodsThis study included 1,053 consecutive inpatients primarily diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma who were referred to the liver tumor center of an academic medical center in China between January and December 2019. The eligibility criteria extracted from two clinical trials, patient attributes, and gold standard were decided manually. We evaluated the performance of the CTMS against the established gold standard by measuring the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and run time required.
resultsThe manual reviewers demonstrated acceptable interrater reliability (Cohen's kappa 0.65-0.88). The performance results for the CTMS were as follows: accuracy, 92.9-98.0%; sensitivity, 51.9-83.5%; specificity, 99.0-99.1%; PPV, 75.7-85.1%; and NPV, 97.4-98.9%. The time required for eligibility determination by the CTMS and manual reviewers was 2 and 150 h, respectively.
conclusionsWe found that the CTMS is particularly reliable in excluding ineligible patients in a significantly reduced amount of time. The CTMS excluded ineligible patients for clinical trials with good performance, reducing 98.7% of the work time. Thus, such AI-based systems with natural language processing and machine learning have potential utility in Chinese clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.