ArticleJMIR research protocols2026
A Natural Language Processing Framework for Structuring and Visualizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria at Scale: Protocol for a Quantitative Study.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Eligibility criteria are essential to clinical trial design, guiding recruitment, and ensuring patient safety and scientific rigor. However, criteria are often lengthy, heterogeneous, and inconsistently formatted, which hinders large-scale interpretation and slows patient-trial matching. Manual review is time-consuming and error-prone. Advances in natural language processing and large language models (LLMs) offer opportunities to standardize and analyze eligibility text at scale. Objective: This study aims to develop and evaluate a scalable system that uses LLM-enabled natural language processing and unsupervised learning to identify, normalize, categorize, and visualize clinical trial eligibility criteria, with the goal of improving patient-trial matching and revealing domain-level trends. Methods: We designed a three-part pipeline: (1) representation of eligibility text using embeddings, followed by clustering to group semantically similar criteria; (2) dual-layer zero-shot LLM summarization for concept normalization, refinement, and deduplication of cluster exemplars; and (3) an interactive, web-based visualization interface to explore criteria distributions and trends by disease domain and over time. The pipeline was applied to 53,872 oncology trials (breast, lung, and gastrointestinal cancer) indexed on ClinicalTrials.gov. Outputs include cluster labels, normalized criterion summaries, and per-domain frequency profiles. Feasibility was assessed via successful end-to-end processing and inspection of face validity for cluster coherence and domain-specific patterns. Results: The system successfully processed all 53,872 trials and generated stable clusters of inclusion and exclusion concepts. The LLM summarization layers produced concise, nonredundant labels that improved the interpretability of clustered criteria. The visualization interface enabled rapid exploration of cross-trial patterns and temporal trends within breast, lung, and gastrointestinal oncology, facilitating identification of common inclusion requirements and potential barriers to enrollment. A public, open-source demonstration instance allows for interactive exploration of these clusters and summaries. Benchmarking through human validation on a random sample of eligibility criteria found the system to be 94% (470/500) accurate, reflecting its ability to consistently categorize criteria correctly in congruence with human judgment. Conclusions: A combined embeddings-clustering-LLM pipeline can standardize heterogeneous eligibility text and surface domain-level patterns at scale. This framework provides a foundation for accelerating patient-trial matching and informing future trial design. While the current implementation was evaluated on ClinicalTrials.gov oncology trials, the approach is readily generalizable to additional diseases and alternative modeling configurations.
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.