Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38854210›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Utilizing Large Language Models for Enhanced Clinical Trial Matching: A Study on Automation in Patient Screening.

Jacob Beattie, Sarah Neufeld, Daniel Yang, Christian Chukwuma, Ahmed Gul, Neil Desai, Steve Jiang, Michael Dohopolski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Exploring the potential of AI-powered applications for clinical decision-making in gynecologic oncology.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Large Language Models Diagnose Facial Deformity.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
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

8 authors.

Jacob BeattieDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Sarah NeufeldDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Daniel YangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Christian ChukwumaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Ahmed GulDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Neil DesaiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Steve JiangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Michael DohopolskiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Clinical trial matching, essential for advancing medical research, involves detailed screening of potential participants to ensure alignment with specific trial requirements. Research staff face challenges due to the high volume of eligible patients and the complexity of varying eligibility criteria. The traditional manual process, both time-consuming and error-prone, often leads to missed opportunities. Recently, large language models (LLMs), specifically generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs), have become impressive and impactful tools. Utilizing such tools from artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP) may enhance the accuracy and efficiency of this process through automated patient screening against established criteria. Methods Utilizing data from the National NLP Clinical Challenges (n2c2) 2018 Challenge, we utilized 202 longitudinal patient records. These records were annotated by medical professionals and evaluated against 13 selection criteria encompassing various health assessments. Our approach involved embedding medical documents into a vector database to determine relevant document sections and then using an LLM (OpenAI's GPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4) in tandem with structured and chain-of-thought prompting techniques for systematic document assessment against the criteria. Misclassified criteria were also examined to identify classification challenges. Results This study achieved an accuracy of 0.81, sensitivity of 0.80, specificity of 0.82, and a micro F1 score of 0.79 using GPT-3.5 Turbo, and an accuracy of 0.87, sensitivity of 0.85, specificity of 0.89, and micro F1 score of 0.86 using GPT-4. Notably, some criteria in the ground truth appeared mislabeled, an issue we couldn't explore further due to insufficient label generation guidelines on the website. Conclusion Our findings underscore the potential of AI and NLP technologies, including LLMs, in the clinical trial matching process. The study demonstrated strong capabilities in identifying eligible patients and minimizing false inclusions. Such automated systems promise to alleviate the workload of research staff and improve clinical trial enrollment, thus accelerating the process and enhancing the overall feasibility of clinical research. Further work is needed to determine the potential of this approach when implemented on real clinical data.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (ai)clinical trial enrollmentelectronic health recordsnatural language processing (nlp)public data

Identifiers

PMID38854210
PMCPMC11162699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.