ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2024
Recommending Clinical Trials for Online Patient Cases using Artificial Intelligence.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical trials are crucial for assessing new treatments; however, recruitment challenges-such as limited awareness, complex eligibility criteria, and referral barriers-hinder their success. With the growth of online platforms, patients, caregivers, and family members increasingly post medical cases on social media and health communities, while physicians publish case reports accessible on platforms like PubMed-collectively expanding recruitment pools beyond traditional clinical trial pathways. Recognizing this potential, we utilized TrialGPT, a framework that leverages a large language model, to match 50 online patient cases (collected from case reports and social media) to clinical trials and evaluate performance against traditional keyword-based searches. Our results show that TrialGPT outperformed traditional methods by 46%, with patients eligible, on average, for 7 of the top 10 recommended trials. Additionally, outreach to case authors and trial organizers yielded positive feedback. These findings highlight TrialGPT's potential to expand patient access to specialized care through non-traditional sources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41726429PMC12919571What 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.