Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39839913›Full record

ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2025

A Novel Model Using ML Techniques for Clinical Trial Design and Expedited Patient Onboarding Process.

Abhirvey Iyer, Sundaravalli Narayanaswami

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Artificial Intelligence in Rhinology: A State-of-the-Art Review of Clinical Readiness and Implementation Pathways.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. The potential of artificial intelligence in clinical trials.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026
    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

2 authors.

Abhirvey IyerDepartment of Pharmaceutical Engineering & Technology, Indian Institute of Technology (BHU) Varanasi, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India.ORCID 0009-0009-9817-1310
Sundaravalli NarayanaswamiPublic Systems Group, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0679-8861

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical trials are critical for drug development and patient care; however, they often need more efficient trial design and patient enrolment processes. This research explores integrating machine learning (ML) techniques to address these challenges. Specifically, the study investigates ML models for two critical aspects: (1) streamlining clinical trial design parameters (like the site of drug action, type of Interventional/Observational model, etc) and (2) optimizing patient/volunteer enrolment for trials through efficient classification techniques. Methods: The study utilized two datasets: the first, with 55,000 samples (from ClinicalTrials.gov), was divided into five subsets (10,000-15,000 rows each) for model evaluation, focusing on trial parameter optimization. The second dataset targeted patient eligibility classification (from the UCI ML Repository). Five ML models-XGBoost, Random Forest, Support Vector Classifier (SVC), Logistic Regression, and Decision Tree-were applied to both datasets, alongside Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) for the second dataset. Model performance was evaluated using precision, recall, balanced accuracy, ROC-AUC, and weighted F1-score, with results averaged across k-fold cross-validation. Results: In the first phase, XGBoost and Random Forest emerged as the best-performing models across all five subsets, achieving an average balanced accuracy of 0.71 and an average ROC-AUC of 0.7. The second dataset analysis revealed that while SVC and ANN performed well, ANN was preferred for its scalability to larger datasets. ANN achieved a test accuracy of 0.73714, demonstrating its potential for real-world implementation in patient streamlining. Discussion: The study highlights the effectiveness of ML models in improving clinical trial workflows. XGBoost and Random Forest demonstrated robust performance for large clinical datasets in optimizing trial parameters, while ANN proved advantageous for patient eligibility classification due to its scalability. These findings underscore the potential of ML to enhance decision-making, reduce delays, and improve the accuracy of clinical trial outcomes. As ML technology continues to evolve, its integration into clinical research could drive innovation and improve patient care.

Indexed as

clinical trialsfeature encodingfeature engineeringmachine learningpatient onboardingsite selection

Identifiers

PMID39839913
PMCPMC11745069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.