ArticleScientific reports2025
Enhanced pre-recruitment framework for clinical trial questionnaires through the integration of large language models and knowledge graphs.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation Frameworks for Clinical Foundation Models in Specific Tasks of Unstructured Medical Text Analysis: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Large Language Models in Clinical Trial Recruitment: Sociotechnical and Economic Framework Development Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Large language models in emergency and critical care medicine: a comprehensive review of applications, challenges, and future directions.Burns & trauma · 2026Review
- Improving Recruitment Into Research Studies via Electronically Collected Patient-Entered Data: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Enhancing Patient-Trial Matching With Large Language Models: A Scoping Review of Emerging Applications and Approaches.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recruitment of participants for clinical trials has traditionally been a passive and challenging process, leading to difficulties in acquiring a sufficient number of qualified participants in a timely manner. This issue has impeded advancements in medical research. However, recent years have seen the evolution of knowledge graphs and the introduction of large language models (LLMs), providing innovative approaches for the pre-screening and recruitment phases of clinical trials. These developments promise enhanced recruitment efficiency and increased participant involvement. To ensure the safety and efficacy of clinical trials, it is crucial to establish precise inclusion and exclusion criteria for participant selection. This paper introduces a method to optimize the pre-recruitment stage by utilizing these criteria in conjunction with the cutting-edge capabilities of knowledge graphs and LLMs. The enhanced strategy includes the automated generation of questionnaires, algorithmic evaluation of eligibility, supplemental query-response functions, and a broader participant screening reach. The application of this framework yielded a detailed clinical trial recruitment questionnaire that accurately encompasses all necessary criteria. Its JSON output is noteworthy for its precision and reliability, achieving an impressive 90% accuracy rate in summarizing patient responses. Additionally, the questionnaire's ancillary question-and-answer feature complies with stringent legal and ethical standards, meeting the requirements for practical deployment. This study validates the practicality and technological soundness of the presented approach. Utilizing this framework is expected to enhance the efficiency of trial recruitment and the level of patient 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.