ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026
Retrieval-enhanced drafting of ClinicalTrials.gov data elements from clinical protocols.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Manual submission of clinical trial data to the ClinicalTrials.gov registry is labor-intensive and error-prone, contributing to variability in the completeness and consistency of registry entries. To explore whether recent advances in large language models could support this process, we developed ChatCT, a pilot retrieval-augmented system that drafts ClinicalTrials.gov registry elements. Methods: We evaluated ChatCT-generated registry elements across three dimensions: 1. semantic similarity to the public ClinicalTrials.gov record, 2. formatting compliance with ClinicalTrials.gov requirements, and 3. coverage of key trial biomedical concepts. Results: ChatCT-generated registry elements were highly semantically similar to human-authored ClinicalTrials.gov records (median BERTScore F1 ≈ 0.82). Formatting compliance was high for structured elements, including Study Design (91% of required fields present; mean completeness 0.897) and Arms/Interventions (75%; 0.772), while narrative sections showed greater variability, including Outcome Measures (79%; 0.929) and Study Description (57%; 0.784). Ontology-based concept extraction and matching demonstrated consistently high precision, with scores ranging from 90% to 100%. Conclusions: A retrieval-augmented large language model can generate ClinicalTrials.gov registry drafts that preserve essential protocol details and adhere to most formatting requirements. However, light post-processing (e.g., automated schema validation) remains necessary for full submission readiness. This proof-of-concept evaluation suggests that ChatCT-assisted drafting could support registry reporting by improving consistency between protocol documents and publicly reported trial information.
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.