Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41273484›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2025

Computational Framework for Structuring and Analyzing Clinical Trial Criteria for AI-Guided Fine-grained Matching.

Daniel R S Habib, Ishan Mahajan, Betina Evancha, Christine Micheel, Daniel Fabbri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evaluating the efficacy and readability of advanced large language models in responding to patients' frequently asked questions about chronic rhinosinusitis: a comparative analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Daniel R S HabibVanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0504-9076
Ishan MahajanVanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-5058-9680
Betina EvanchaVanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA.
Christine MicheelVanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3641-6361
Daniel FabbriVanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA. daniel.fabbri@vumc.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0530-2510

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated potential in automating clinical trial matching, most existing solutions rely on high-level structured data or oversimplified criteria. This study introduces a framework to structure and analyze eligibility criteria across three real-world trial protocols, aiming to inform more granular AI-driven trial matching strategies. Trial criteria from three protocols were decomposed into individual variables and evaluated based on data type, scope, and dependency. Complexity was assessed using a novel formula incorporating the number of independent and dependent variables, alongside the Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level. Quantitative analysis explored variation across trials. Protocols contained between 22-160 eligibility variables, with 4-22% showing interdependence. Reading grade levels ranged from sixth grade to first-year college. Complexity scores varied significantly, with some trials exhibiting particularly high cognitive and logical burdens. Recursive and hierarchical structures were prevalent in high-complexity protocols. This study reveals the substantial variability and structural complexity of clinical trial criteria, highlighting challenges for AI matching systems. A standardized approach to measuring trial complexity can enhance algorithm transparency, scalability, and interpretability. These findings underscore the need for structured, computable frameworks to improve equity and efficiency in clinical trial recruitment.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical Trials as TopicPatient SelectionAlgorithmsHumansArtificial intelligenceClinicalDecision support systemsEligibility determinationMedical informaticsNatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID41273484
PMCPMC12640310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.