Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39312296›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Trial Factors Associated With Completion of Clinical Trials Evaluating AI: Retrospective Case-Control Study.

David Chen, Christian Cao, Robert Kloosterman, Rod Parsa, Srinivas Raman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

5 authors.

David ChenTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3178-519X
Christian CaoTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0395-0381
Robert KloostermanTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5474-9012
Rod ParsaMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0009-0009-7205-8774
Srinivas RamanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5688-9628

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in clinical trials remains the gold standard for translation into clinical settings. However, design factors associated with successful trial completion and the common reasons for trial failure are unknown.

objectiveThis study aims to compare trial design factors of complete and incomplete clinical trials testing AI tools. We conducted a case-control study of complete (n=485) and incomplete (n=51) clinical trials that evaluated AI as an intervention of ClinicalTrials.gov.

methodsTrial design factors, including area of clinical application, intended use population, and intended role of AI, were extracted. Trials that did not evaluate AI as an intervention and active trials were excluded. The assessed trial design factors related to AI interventions included the domain of clinical application related to organ systems; intended use population for patients or health care providers; and the role of AI for different applications in patient-facing clinical workflows, such as diagnosis, screening, and treatment. In addition, we also assessed general trial design factors including study type, allocation, intervention model, masking, age, sex, funder, continent, length of time, sample size, number of enrollment sites, and study start year. The main outcome was the completion of the clinical trial. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI values were calculated for all trial design factors using propensity-matched, multivariable logistic regression.

resultsWe queried ClinicalTrials.gov on December 23, 2023, using AI keywords to identify complete and incomplete trials testing AI technologies as a primary intervention, yielding 485 complete and 51 incomplete trials for inclusion in this study. Our nested propensity-matched, case-control results suggest that trials conducted in Europe were significantly associated with trial completion when compared with North American trials (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.14-7.10; P=.03), and the trial sample size was positively associated with trial completion (OR 1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.00; P=.02).

conclusionsOur case-control study is one of the first to identify trial design factors associated with completion of AI trials and catalog study-reported reasons for AI trial failure. We observed that trial design factors positively associated with trial completion include trials conducted in Europe and sample size. Given the promising clinical use of AI tools in health care, our results suggest that future translational research should prioritize addressing the design factors of AI clinical trials associated with trial incompletion and common reasons for study failure.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical Trials as TopicCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMaleResearch DesignRetrospective StudiesAIapplicationartificial intelligenceclinicalclinical trialcompletioncross-sectional studyEuropehealth carehealth informationinformaticsinterventionlogistic regressiontrial designtrials testing

Identifiers

PMID39312296
PMCPMC11459098

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.