ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
SEETrials: Leveraging Large Language Models for Safety and Efficacy Extraction in Oncology Clinical Trials.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Initial insights into oncology clinical trial outcomes are often gleaned manually from conference abstracts. We aimed to develop an automated system to extract safety and efficacy information from study abstracts with high precision and fine granularity, transforming them into computable data for timely clinical decision-making. Methods: We collected clinical trial abstracts from key conferences and PubMed (2012-2023). The SEETrials system was developed with four modules: preprocessing, prompt modeling, knowledge ingestion and postprocessing. We evaluated the system's performance qualitatively and quantitatively and assessed its generalizability across different cancer types- multiple myeloma (MM), breast, lung, lymphoma, and leukemia. Furthermore, the efficacy and safety of innovative therapies, including CAR-T, bispecific antibodies, and antibody-drug conjugates (ADC), in MM were analyzed across a large scale of clinical trial studies. Results: SEETrials achieved high precision (0.958), recall (sensitivity) (0.944), and F1 score (0.951) across 70 data elements present in the MM trial studies Generalizability tests on four additional cancers yielded precision, recall, and F1 scores within the 0.966-0.986 range. Variation in the distribution of safety and efficacy-related entities was observed across diverse therapies, with certain adverse events more common in specific treatments. Comparative performance analysis using overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) highlighted differences among therapies: CAR-T (ORR: 88%, 95% CI: 84-92%; CR: 95%, 95% CI: 53-66%), bispecific antibodies (ORR: 64%, 95% CI: 55-73%; CR: 27%, 95% CI: 16-37%), and ADC (ORR: 51%, 95% CI: 37-65%; CR: 26%, 95% CI: 1-51%). Notable study heterogeneity was identified (>75% Conclusion: SEETrials demonstrated highly accurate data extraction and versatility across different therapeutics and various cancer domains. Its automated processing of large datasets facilitates nuanced data comparisons, promoting the swift and effective dissemination of clinical insights.
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.