Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42038722›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026

Retrieval-enhanced drafting of ClinicalTrials.gov data elements from clinical protocols.

Ramya Sri Baluguri, Nicholas Anderson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Ramya Sri BaluguriUniversity of California Davis, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8142-9615
Nicholas AndersonUniversity of California Davis, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2999-7284

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligenceClinical trial protocolsClinicalTrials.govdata extractionnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID42038722
PMCPMC13107080

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.