A pre-registered prospective study of large language models predicting late-breaking cardiovascular trial results at ESC Congress 2026
Jeon, K.-H.; Kwun, J.-S.; Cho, H.-W.
Show abstract
Aims. It is unknown whether large language models (LLMs) can predict a trial's result at the design stage, from the information available when it is registered. We tested three LLMs prospectively on the Late-Breaking Science programme of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2026. Methods and results. Of 139 trials, 50 were selected by pre-specified criteria, and predictions were locked and registered on the Open Science Framework before the congress. Claude Fable 5, GPT-5.5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash, without web access, received each title and an investigator-compiled summary of the registered design. They gave the probability that the primary endpoint would be met, and a point estimate with an 80% prediction interval for a locked effect measure. Results were adjudicated from publications (19) or presenters' slides (31). Of 48 scorable trials, 28 (58%) were positive. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.80 (95% CI 0.66-0.92) for Claude, 0.79 (0.66-0.91) for GPT and 0.74 (0.59-0.87) for Gemini, with accuracies of 73%, 71% and 67%. Among 26 trials whose effect was reported exactly as locked, the direction was correct in 88% of predictions and the median multiplicative error of ratio estimates was about 15%. The 80% prediction intervals contained the observed effect in 73.1% (Claude), 84.6% (GPT) and 57.7% (Gemini). Conclusion. From the registered design alone, LLMs showed statistically significant discrimination between positive and negative trials and usually predicted the direction and approximate size of the effect. Such predictions might help trial design, and further studies are needed.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Approaches in Analyzing Predictors of Trial Failure: A Scoping Review and Meta-epidemiological study 94%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 94%
- Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: A systematic review 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Large-scale validation of the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) using a short form: high risk of bias models show poorer discrimination 93%
- Re-use of trial data in the first 10 years of the data-sharing policy of the Annals of Internal Medicine: a survey of published studies 92%
- Results dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centres was delayed and incomplete 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Right Ventricular Dysfunction: An Overlooked Predictor of Sudden Cardiac Death and Arrhythmic Events -- A Meta-Analysis 92%
- Artificial Intelligence Methods to Detect Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (AIM-HFpEF) within Electronic Health Records: An equitable disease prediction model 91%
- Mortality Risk and Treatment Disparities in the Chinese SMuRF-less STEMI Patients: A Nationwide Cohort Study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 93%
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 92%
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of an early invasive strategy compared to a conservative approach in elderly patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome 91%
"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.