ArticleJAMIA open2024
Predicting the sample size of randomized controlled trials using natural language processing.
Article in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Extracting the sample size from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remains a challenge to developing better search functionalities or automating systematic reviews. Most current approaches rely on the sample size being explicitly mentioned in the abstract. The objective of this study was, therefore, to develop and validate additional approaches. Materials and Methods: 847 RCTs from high-impact medical journals were tagged with 6 different entities that could indicate the sample size. A named entity recognition (NER) model was trained to extract the entities and then deployed on a test set of 150 RCTs. The entities' performance in predicting the actual number of trial participants who were randomized was assessed and possible combinations of the entities were evaluated to create predictive models. The test set was also used to evaluate the performance of GPT-4o on the same task. Results: The most accurate model could make predictions for 64.7% of trials in the test set, and the resulting predictions were equal to the ground truth in 93.8%. GPT-4o was able to make a prediction on 94.7% of trials and the resulting predictions were equal to the ground truth in 90.8%. Discussion: This study presents an NER model that can extract different entities that can be used to predict the sample size from the abstract of an RCT. The entities can be combined in different ways to obtain models with different characteristics. Conclusion: Training an NER model to predict the sample size from RCTs is feasible. Large language models can deliver similar performance without the need for prior training on the task although at a higher cost due to proprietary technology and/or required computational power.
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.