ArticlePloS one2024
Enhancing site selection strategies in clinical trial recruitment using real-world data modeling.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Improving Participant Recruitment in Clinical Trials: Comparative Analysis of Innovative Digital Platforms.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Canadian adaptive platform trial of treatments for COVID in community settings (CanTreatCOVID): recruitment strategies of a decentralized, national randomized controlled trial for acute SARS-CoV-2.Frontiers in public health · 2026Trial
- Artificial intelligence in clinical trials-state of the evidence, gaps, and next steps.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Beyond prediction: an evidenced-based framework for assessing site selection decisions.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- From Invisible to Enrolled: How Artificial Intelligence Is Reshaping Clinical Trial Recruitment.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Readiness in Clinical Trial Operations: A Narrative Review and Site-Level Governance Framework.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in clinical trial participant recruitment and retention: A scoping review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Review
- CLEAR: A vision to support clinical evidence lifecycle with continuous learning.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2025Article
- Utilization of a structured research site mentorship model to facilitate site performance in a clinical research network.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Evaluating the combined efficacy of Telisotuzumab Vedotin and artificial intelligence in the treatment of non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a narrative review focusing on pharmaceutical and technical insights.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Slow patient enrollment or failing to enroll the required number of patients is a disruptor of clinical trial timelines. To meet the planned trial recruitment, site selection strategies are used during clinical trial planning to identify research sites that are most likely to recruit a sufficiently high number of subjects within trial timelines. We developed a machine learning approach that outperforms baseline methods to rank research sites based on their expected recruitment in future studies. Indication level historical recruitment and real-world data are used in the machine learning approach to predict patient enrollment at site level. We define covariates based on published recruitment hypotheses and examine the effect of these covariates in predicting patient enrollment. We compare model performance of a linear and a non-linear machine learning model with common industry baselines that are constructed from historical recruitment data. Performance of the methodology is evaluated and reported for two disease indications, inflammatory bowel disease and multiple myeloma, both of which are actively being pursued in clinical development. We validate recruitment hypotheses by reviewing the covariates relationship with patient recruitment. For both indications, the non-linear model significantly outperforms the baselines and the linear model on the test set. In this paper, we present a machine learning approach to site selection that incorporates site-level recruitment and real-world patient data. The model ranks research sites by predicting the number of recruited patients and our results suggest that the model can improve site ranking compared to common industry baselines.
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.