Back

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.

2026-06-05 oncology
10.64898/2026.06.03.26354859 medRxiv
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.

50% of probability mass above

"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.