ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2025
The use of large language models to enhance cancer clinical trial educational materials.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Patients prefer ChatGPT to institutional websites for questions on radiation-based imaging exams: international mixed-methods study.Radiology advances · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Evaluation of AI Consent Forms in Otolaryngologic Surgery.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in Clinical Trial Recruitment: Sociotechnical and Economic Framework Development Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis: a narrative review.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- Large language models in healthcare quality management: a European perspective on process automation and compliance.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- AI meets informed consent: a new era for clinical trial communication.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
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
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.