ArticleClinical and translational science2025
Exploration of Using an Open-Source Large Language Model for Analyzing Trial Information: A Case Study of Clinical Trials With Decentralized Elements.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Operationalizing Decentralized Clinical Trials: Technology Insights from the Trials@Home RADIAL Proof-of-Concept Trial.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Clinical and Translational Science: From Bench Insights to Bedside Impact.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite interest in clinical trials with decentralized elements (DCTs), analysis of their trends in trial registries is lacking due to heterogeneous designs and unstandardized terms. We explored Llama 3, an open-source large language model, to efficiently evaluate these trends. Trial data were sourced from Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov, focusing on drug trials conducted between 2018 and 2023. We utilized three Llama 3 models with a different number of parameters: 8b (model 1), fine-tuned 8b (model 2) with curated data, and 70b (model 3). Prompt engineering enabled sophisticated tasks such as classification of DCTs with explanations and extracting decentralized elements. Model performance, evaluated on a 3-month exploratory test dataset, demonstrated that sensitivity could be improved after fine-tuning from 0.0357 to 0.5385. Low positive predictive value in the fine-tuned model 2 could be improved by focusing on trials with DCT-associated expressions from 0.5385 to 0.9167. However, the extraction of decentralized elements was only properly performed by model 3, which had a larger number of parameters. Based on the results, we screened the entire 6-year dataset after applying DCT-associated expressions. After the subsequent application of models 2 and 3, we identified 692 DCTs. We found that a total of 213 trials were classified as phase 2, followed by 162 phase 4 trials, 112 phase 3 trials, and 92 phase 1 trials. In conclusion, our study demonstrated the potential of large language models for analyzing clinical trial information not structured in a machine-readable format. Managing potential biases during model application is crucial.
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.