Quantifying Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Using Artificial Intelligence-Based Matching
Goel, K. P.; Myall, N. J.; Dickerson, J.; Caswell-Jin, J. L.; Johnson, T.; Worth, J. E.; Gensheimer, M. F.
Show abstract
PURPOSE: To develop and validate an artificial intelligence-enabled platform that converts unstructured cancer trial eligibility criteria into structured queries and quantifies trial eligibility across advanced/metastatic cancer trials. METHODS: We downloaded actively recruiting US interventional treatment trials for advanced/metastatic breast cancer, colon cancer, and non-small cell lung cancer from ClinicalTrials.gov. Medical oncologists created 24 synthetic patient vignettes. A large language model converted trial eligibility criteria into Structured Query Language (SQL) code and patient information into structured records, enabling automated matching. Cancer details and treatment history were considered, but not laboratory results or comorbidities. Validation included physician editing of generated eligibility code for 30 trials, and blinded physician eligibility assessment for five trials. We then evaluated how age, ECOG performance status, sex, and ZIP code affected the number of eligible trials. RESULTS: Of 833 candidate trials, 746 met inclusion criteria. In physician review of 30 trials, edits to generated SQL did not change any of 720 trial-patient eligibility determinations for 24 synthetic patients. In blinded validation across 120 trial-patient pairs, automated matching achieved 97% accuracy. Across synthetic patients, eligible trials ranged from 31 to 258 when there were no geographic restrictions. Eligibility decreased markedly with worse performance status and with geographic restriction (both p<0.001). Later-phase, randomized, and molecularly selective trials had fewer eligible patients. CONCLUSION: AI-based structuring of trial eligibility criteria can support accurate, scalable measurement of potential cancer trial eligibility. In this demonstration, performance status, geography, and age were major determinants of eligibility across the active metastatic trial landscape.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Towards Predicting 30-Day Readmission among Oncology Patients: Identifying Timely and Actionable Risk Factors 93%
- Large language models to help appeal denied radiotherapy services 93%
- NCT Precision Oncology Thesaurus Drugs – a Curated Database for Drugs, Drug Classes, and Drug Targets in Precision Cancer Medicine 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Missing data in the medical record for oncology patients: prevalence and association with outcomes 94%
- Low adherence to existing model reporting guidelines by commonly used clinical prediction models 92%
- Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting FDA Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents Over Three Decades, 1995-2017: Cross-Sectional Analysis 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- How Informative Were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov 93%
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 93%
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 93%
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 93%
- Supporting Reanalysis and Reuse of Clinical Trial Data: A Case Study 92%
- UKCTOCS Update: Applying insights of delayed effects in cancer screening trials to the long-term follow-up mortality analysis 91%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.