ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Use of a Generative Pretrained Transformer to Answer Questions and Facilitate a Large Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03812653 (Sleep for Stroke Management and Recovery Trial), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Sleep for Stroke Management and Recovery Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenerative artificial intelligence may help facilitate clinical trials. We sought to determine whether a customized generative pretrained transformer (GPT) could assist clinical trial sites within a randomized, controlled trial with rapid responses to protocol and procedure-related questions.
methodsWithin a large clinical trial, Sleep SMART (Sleep for Stroke Management and Recovery Trial), we developed, tested, and implemented a customized GPT designed to answer, in real-time, procedure-related questions. This support was offered to all active trial sites and questions and responses were monitored by the central study team. An anonymous survey also queried primary study coordinators about their experiences with the GPT.
resultsOf the 785 questions entered during a 10-month implementation period, 75% were able to be answered per the GPT. On manual review, of the 588 that the GPT reportedly answered, only 13 (2%) were not helpful responses, 12 (2%) were incomplete responses, 5 (1%) were misleading, and 3 (1%) contained the correct response but also provided some conflicting messaging. Of 95 primary study coordinators to whom the survey was sent, 45 (47%) responded. Of those, 21 (47%) reported having used the GPT. Of the 19 who provided more detailed information, 89% found it to be very helpful (n=11) or helpful (n=6). Most (79%) found the responses to be accurate (n=15) or partially accurate (n=2), and 89% were very satisfied (n=10) or satisfied (n=7) with the GPT.
conclusionsThis novel use of a customized GPT suggests it could be valuable in support of clinical sites within a large trial. Further research should confirm equivalent accuracy and safety through a direct comparison to human support. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/; Unique Identifier: NCT03812653.
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.