ArticleBiology methods & protocols2026
ClinAgent: AI-assisted methodology for clinical trial data processing and statistical programming.
Article in Biology methods & 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical trial statistical programming requires 12-24 full-time-equivalent months per Phase 3 study and remains a bottleneck in pharmaceutical research. Modern artificial intelligence coding agents reason capably but lack domain-specific tools: they cannot read proprietary statistical software datasets, parse analysis specifications, or generate standards-compliant code without extensive guidance. We present ClinAgent, a skill and tool layer that augments any artificial intelligence coding agent with clinical programming capabilities through Model Context Protocol tools. Its design separates minimal data access from rich domain logic: skills package prompts, rule engines, and decision trees encoding expert knowledge, while tools provide stateless input-output for statistical software datasets, spreadsheet specifications, and log files. In this single-study proof-of-concept evaluation, we validate ClinAgent's nine skills on artifacts from a production Phase 2 cardiovascular study, with synthetic datasets spanning 13 analysis domains and 102 109 observations. All skills pass functional validation. On this small sample, deterministic components identify one error and seven warnings without false positives and match all 56 subject-level variables; corresponding confidence intervals are wide, so these point estimates should be read as upper bounds pending replication. Prompt-based specification generation, dependent on the underlying language model, reaches 72.1% derivation accuracy overall, above 96% in simple domains and below 55% in complex ones, indicating that generated specifications require expert review. Our contributions include an agent-augmentation architecture, nine validated skills, tool implementations for clinical data formats, and a validation methodology distinguishing deterministic tool correctness from language-model-dependent output.
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.