TrialScout links published results to trial registrations using a large language model
Ahnström, L.; Bruckner, T.; Aspromonti, D. A.; Caquelin, L.; Cummins, J.; DeVito, N. J.; Axfors, C.; Ioannidis, J. P. A.; Nilsonne, G.
Show abstract
BackgroundMultiple stakeholders need to locate results of registered clinical trials but frequently struggle to find them. Summary results of clinical trials are often not published in trial registries, and publications containing trial results are often not explicitly linked to their respective trial registrations. Finding these results is important to researchers, systematic reviewers, research funders, regulators, clinical practitioners, and patients. MethodsWe developed TrialScout, a computer program that uses a large language model to match clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with corresponding result publications indexed in PubMed. TrialScouts performance was evaluated through comparison to human-coded matches from previous studies of results reporting rates. Subsequently, TrialScout was applied to a random sample of 9,600 completed or terminated trials. ResultsTrialScout had a sensitivity of 92.5% and a specificity of 81.2% compared to human coders. Manual review of 200 cases where TrialScout disagreed with human researchers showed that a majority (123/200, 61.5%, 95% CI, 54.4-68.3%) of disagreements were due to human errors. When used on 9,600 sampled trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, TrialScout found result publications for 6,110 (63.6%) of trials. DiscussionTrialScout reliably located results of completed clinical trials. The tool offers benefits in terms of speed and efficiency. Estimating TrialScouts accuracy is limited by the lack of a true gold standard. TrialScout can accelerate the process of locating trial results in the scientific literature and can assist in monitoring trial reporting practices.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Results reporting for clinical trials led by medical universities and university hospitals in the Nordic countries was often missing or delayed 98%
- Results dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centres was delayed and incomplete 97%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving research transparency with individualized report cards: A feasibility study in clinical trials at a large university medical center 96%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 96%
- Approaches in Analyzing Predictors of Trial Failure: A Scoping Review and Meta-epidemiological study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 97%
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 95%
- How Informative Were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: a scoping review 93%
- A modular pipeline for natural language processing-screened human abstraction of a pragmatic trial outcome from electronic health records 93%
- Evidence Supporting EMA Drug Approvals (2020-2023): A Cross-Sectional Study of Trial Design and Outcomes 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 98%
- Development of a consensus extension of the estimands framework for cluster randomised trials (CRT-estimands): results from an international Delphi study 93%
- Number of Interventional Clinical Trials Registered per Million Population per Country Worldwide 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.