Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39921887›Full record

ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2025

The use of large language models to enhance cancer clinical trial educational materials.

Mingye Gao, Aman Varshney, Shan Chen, Vikram Goddla, Jack Gallifant, Patrick Doyle, Claire Novack, Maeve Dillon-Martin, Teresia Perkins, Xinrong Correia and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Comprehensive Evaluation of AI Consent Forms in Otolaryngologic Surgery.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Mingye GaoMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States.
Aman VarshneyTechnical University of Munich, Munich 80333, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1340-1423
Shan ChenArtificial Intelligence in Medicine Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7999-7410
Vikram GoddlaArtificial Intelligence in Medicine Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6286-6684
Jack GallifantArtificial Intelligence in Medicine Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1306-2334
Patrick DoyleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, United States.ORCID 0009-0004-5001-933X
Claire NovackDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, United States.ORCID 0009-0000-0868-2585
Maeve Dillon-MartinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
Teresia PerkinsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, United States.ORCID 0009-0006-6846-150X
Xinrong CorreiaCentaur Labs, Boston, MA 02116, United States.ORCID 0009-0007-9245-0170
Erik DuhaimeCentaur Labs, Boston, MA 02116, United States.
Howard IsensteinDigidence, Bethesda, MD 20814, United States.
Elad SharonDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0044-9719
Lisa Soleymani LehmannDepartment of Medicine, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8779-1244
David KozonoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
Brian AnthonyMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6346-5276
Dmitriy DligachLoyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2585-2707
Danielle S BittermanArtificial Intelligence in Medicine Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0345-2232

Funding

Shared Resource Core 2: Clinical Artificial Intelligence CoreU54CA274516 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI Ross I. Berbeco · 2023 to 2026
$8.1M
Informatics strategies to improve immune-related adverse event detection in cancer patientsR01CA294033 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Hugo Aerts · 2024 to 2026
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA294033NCI NIH HHS U54 CA274516Woods Foundation NIH R01CA294033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdequate patient awareness and understanding of cancer clinical trials is essential for trial recruitment, informed decision making, and protocol adherence. Although large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for patient education, their role in enhancing patient awareness of clinical trials remains unexplored. This study explored the performance and risks of LLMs in generating trial-specific educational content for potential participants.

methodsGenerative Pretrained Transformer 4 (GPT4) was prompted to generate short clinical trial summaries and multiple-choice question-answer pairs from informed consent forms from ClinicalTrials.gov. Zero-shot learning was used for summaries, using a direct summarization, sequential extraction, and summarization approach. One-shot learning was used for question-answer pairs development. We evaluated performance through patient surveys of summary effectiveness and crowdsourced annotation of question-answer pair accuracy, using held-out cancer trial informed consent forms not used in prompt development.

resultsFor summaries, both prompting approaches achieved comparable results for readability and core content. Patients found summaries to be understandable and to improve clinical trial comprehension and interest in learning more about trials. The generated multiple-choice questions achieved high accuracy and agreement with crowdsourced annotators. For both summaries and multiple-choice questions, GPT4 was most likely to include inaccurate information when prompted to provide information that was not adequately described in the informed consent forms.

conclusionsLLMs such as GPT4 show promise in generating patient-friendly educational content for clinical trials with minimal trial-specific engineering. The findings serve as a proof of concept for the role of LLMs in improving patient education and engagement in clinical trials, as well as the need for ongoing human oversight.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicLarge Language ModelsNeoplasmsPatient Education as TopicComprehensionConsent FormsFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansInformed ConsentMale

Identifiers

PMID39921887
PMCPMC12362247

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.