ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2025
AI meets informed consent: a new era for clinical trial communication.
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Readiness in Clinical Trial Operations: A Narrative Review and Site-Level Governance Framework.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Why patient organizations are important to improve care for people with Lynch syndrome.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models for simplifying non-English medical consent with clinician involvement.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for precision oncology from phenotyping and drug discovery to clinical translation.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Bridging the patient gap: exploring generative AI to support meaningful patient involvement in health technology assessment.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Review
- Transforming Cardio-Oncology Care Through AI-Driven Large Language Model Systems: A Roadmap for Future Implementation.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Review
- Integrating tumor location into artificial intelligence-based prognostic models in cancer.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Empowering oncologists: a practical approach to overcoming barriers to clinical trial enrolment.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2025Article
- From Algorithms to Insight: The Transformative Power of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Urological Cancer Research.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- AI-Induced Cybersecurity Risks in Healthcare: A Narrative Review of Blockchain-Based Solutions Within a Clinical Risk Management Framework.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Review
- Digital Tools and Strategies for Engaging Patients in Cancer Clinical Trials.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical trials are fundamental to evidence-based medicine, providing patients with access to novel therapeutics and advancing scientific knowledge. However, patient comprehension of trial information remains a critical challenge, as registries like ClinicalTrials.gov often present complex medical jargon that is difficult for the general public to understand. While initiatives such as plain-language summaries and multimedia interventions have attempted to improve accessibility, scalable and personalized solutions remain elusive. This study explores the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, to enhance patient education regarding cancer clinical trials. By leveraging informed consent forms from ClinicalTrials.gov, the researchers evaluated 2 artificial intelligence (AI)-driven approaches-direct summarization and sequential summarization-to generate patient-friendly summaries. Additionally, the study assessed the capability of LLMs to create multiple-choice question-answer pairs (MCQAs) to gauge patient understanding. Findings demonstrate that AI-generated summaries significantly improved readability, with sequential summarization yielding higher accuracy and completeness. MCQAs showed high concordance with human-annotated responses, and over 80% of surveyed participants reported enhanced understanding of the author's in-house BROADBAND trial. While LLMs hold promise in transforming patient engagement through improved accessibility of clinical trial information, concerns regarding AI hallucinations, accuracy, and ethical considerations remain. Future research should focus on refining AI-driven workflows, integrating patient feedback, and ensuring regulatory oversight. Addressing these challenges could enable LLMs to play a pivotal role in bridging gaps in clinical trial communication, ultimately improving patient comprehension and participation.
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.