ArticleClinical and translational science2026
A Generative AI Framework for Pharmacokinetic Clinical Study Report Authoring.
Article in 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical Study Reports (CSRs) constitute the final consolidation of findings from clinical studies and routinely include Pharmacokinetic (PK) results. To assist with PK results authoring, we developed a generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) based method that employs a hierarchical, chained large language model (LLM) framework with in-context learning to draft PK results directly from study Tables, Listings, and Figures (TLFs), with optional human input. Unlike traditional fine-tuning approaches, our method does not require large datasets or extensive compute, while producing outputs closely aligned with established CSR structure, tone, and analytical conventions using fewer than a dozen example reports. To assess performance, AI-generated reports and manually expert-written CSRs were evaluated in two blinded review sessions by clinical pharmacologists and pharmacometricians, focusing on relative bioavailability (rBA) and drug-drug interaction (DDI) studies. The AI-generated reports achieved an average reporting quality score of ~90% relative to the manually written CSRs. Together, these results demonstrate a practical, scalable solution for assisting PK report authoring in clinical studies, potentially reducing authoring time while maintaining high-quality standards.
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.