ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
Large Language Models for Clinical Trial Protocol Assessments.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Next-generation probiotics: an outlook into current applications and future developments.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2026Review
- From API to Action: A Multi-Model Comparison of OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta LLMs for Clinical Trial Data Extraction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Influencing Factors of Medical Postgraduates' Usage Intention Toward Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content Tools in Academic Research: Qualitative Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose was to evaluate the utility of large language models (LLMs) for reviewing the statistical analysis plan (SAP) and pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics (PK-PD) components of clinical trial protocols. Clinical trial protocols and SAPs were obtained from clinicaltrials.gov for a testbed of 15 small-molecule drugs, biologics, and global antibiotic and public health interventions. The GPT-4o (ChatGPT) LLM was used to elicit study design attributes, relevant guidelines, and detailed SAP evaluations with prompts engineered to the persona of a regulatory expert. The SAP methodology was assessed against the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) E9 Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials guidance. The SAP evaluation outputs were assessed in post hoc analyses with ChatGPT and Grok, based on a rubric that evaluated the accuracy of primary outcome identification, the correctness of statistical methodology, compliance with the FDA E9 guidance, and clinical interpretability. PK-PD analysis plans were assessed on the accuracy of PK-PD objectives and measures and PK analysis methods. ChatGPT accurately identified the disease, intervention, and comparator groups for all trials, as well as the study sample size for 14 out of 15 trials. The most frequently cited guidelines were the FDA's E9 guidance for SAP and the FDA Guidance for Industry: Population Pharmacokinetics for PK-PD. ChatGPT outputs of the SAP and PK-PD analysis plans were clear and organized, demonstrating a satisfactory ability to extract and summarize technical details; some limitations in contextual accuracy were observed. LLMs can be effective tools for assessing the SAP, PK-PD, and other aspects of clinical trial protocol reviews.
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.