ArticleJournal of medical systems2025
Computational Framework for Structuring and Analyzing Clinical Trial Criteria for AI-Guided Fine-grained Matching.
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.
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.
- Embedded transparency in artificial intelligence: a prerequisite for equity and representation in AI-enabled clinical trials.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Transforming oncology clinical trial matching through neuro-symbolic, multi-agent AI and an oncology-specific knowledge graph: a prospective evaluation in 3804 patients.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- 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 · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.