ArticleNature reviews bioengineering2026
AI-enabled clinical trials.
Article in Nature reviews bioengineering, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials remain the gold standard for evaluating the benefits and risks of new interventions, yet they face persistent challenges including high costs constraining sample sizes, complex eligibility criteria, recruitment difficulties, prolonged follow-up periods to capture hard end points, and the growing prevalence of poorly designed studies that create noise in literature. This Review proposes an artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled clinical trial engineering framework, applicable across medical specialties. This framework builds on four stages: assembling and harmonizing multimodal data to develop and validate tools for enabling trials; matching fit-for-purpose tools to the research question and target outcome; AI-supported trial conduct, including patient-to-trial matching, surrogate end points, externally matched comparator arms, digital twins, and automated data collection and curation; and faster, evidence-based go/no-go decisions that flag non-promising drugs early. Three overarching principles operate throughout: fit-for-purpose validation, continuous regulatory engagement and human oversight. This Review illustrates the framework through representative case studies, with the iBox surrogate in transplantation, the annualized relapse rate in multiple sclerosis, heart digital twins for ventricular tachycardia, AI-assisted histology (AIM-MASH) in hepatology and a large language model for patient-to-trial matching. It further maps the evolving regulatory landscape for AI-enabled clinical trials (EMA, FDA and the EU AI Act). Applied judiciously, AI-enabled clinical trials could shorten timelines, reduce costs and accelerate both the identification of effective therapies and the earlier elimination of futile ones.
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.