The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating eligibility criteria of oncology trials using real-world data and AI
Open accessAbstract
There is a growing focus on making clinical trials more inclusive but the design of trial eligibility criteria remains challenging1–3. Here we systematically evaluate the effect of different eligibility criteria on cancer trial populations and outcomes with real-world data using the computational framework of Trial Pathfinder. We apply Trial Pathfinder to emulate completed trials of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer using data from a nationwide database of electronic health records comprising 61,094 patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Our analyses reveal that many common criteria, including exclusions based on several laboratory values, had a minimal effect on the trial hazard ratios. When we used a data-driven approach to broaden restrictive criteria, the pool of eligible patients more than doubled on average and the hazard ratio of the overall survival decreased by an average of 0.05. This suggests that many patients who were not eligible under the original trial criteria could potentially benefit from the treatments. We further support our findings through analyses of other types of cancer and patient-safety data from diverse clinical trials. Our data-driven methodology for evaluating eligibility criteria can facilitate the design of more-inclusive trials while maintaining safeguards for patient safety. Trial Pathfinder uses data from electronic health records of patients with cancer to evaluate eligibility criteria and broaden restrictive criteria, which facilitates the design of more-inclusive trials while maintaining safeguards for patient safety.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions
Lundberg, S., & Lee, S.-I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.07874 · Cited by 23,707
Advances in neural information processing systems 7
Cios, K., & Shields, M. (1997) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/s0925-2312(97)90018-7 · Cited by 22,059
Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer
Borghaei, H., Paz-Ares, L., Horn, L., Spigel, D. R., Steins, M., Ready, N. E., Chow, L. Q., Vokes, E. E., Felip, E., Holgado, E., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1507643 · Cited by 9,335
Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Brahmer, J., Reckamp, K. L., Baas, P., Crinò, L., Eberhardt, W. E. E., Poddubskaya, E., Antonia, S., Pluzanski, A., Vokes, E. E., Holgado, E., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1504627 · Cited by 8,447
Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer
Gandhi, L., Rodríguez-Abreu, D., Gadgeel, S., Esteban, E., Felip, E., De Angelis, F., Domine, M., Clingan, P., Hochmair, M. J., Powell, S. F., et al. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1801005 · Cited by 6,607
Herbst, R. S., Baas, P., Kim, D.-W., Felip, E., Pérez-Gracia, J. L., Han, J.-Y., Molina, J., Kim, J.-H., Arvis, C. D., Ahn, M.-J., et al. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01281-7 · Cited by 6,449
Osimertinib in Untreated EGFR -Mutated Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Soria, J.-C., Ohe, Y., Vansteenkiste, J., Reungwetwattana, T., Chewaskulyong, B., Lee, K. H., Dechaphunkul, A., Imamura, F., Nogami, N., Kurata, T., et al. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1713137 · Cited by 5,508
Rittmeyer, A., Barlesi, F., Waterkamp, D., Park, K., Ciardiello, F., von Pawel, J., Gadgeel, S. M., Hida, T., Kowalski, D. M., Dols, M. C., et al. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32517-x · Cited by 4,675
Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for squamous non-small-cell lung cancer
Paz-Ares, L., Luft, A., Vicente, D., Tafreshi, A., Gümüş, M., Mazières, J., Hermes, B., Çay Şenler, F., Csőszi, T., Fülöp, A., et al. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1810865 · Cited by 3,617
Frampton, G. M., Fichtenholtz, A., Otto, G. A., Wang, K., Downing, S. R., He, J., Schnall-Levin, M., White, J., Sanford, E. M., An, P., et al. (2013) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2696 · Cited by 2,157
Cited by
On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07258 · Cited by 2,676
Big data in basic and translational cancer research
Jiang, P., Sinha, S., Aldape, K., Hannenhalli, S., Sahinalp, C., & Ruppin, E. (2022) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41568-022-00502-0 · Cited by 254
Brauner, P., Hick, A., Philipsen, R., & Ziefle, M. (2023) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2023.1113903 · Cited by 143
Moon, I., LoPiccolo, J., Baca, S. C., Sholl, L. M., Kehl, K. L., Hassett, M. J., Liu, D., Schrag, D., & Gusev, A. (2023) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02482-6 · Cited by 122
Azoulay, L. (2022) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1093/oncolo/oyac114 · Cited by 79
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, R., Rizzo, S., Whipple, S., Pal, N., Pineda, A. L., Lu, M., Arnieri, B., Lu, Y., Capra, W., Copping, R., & Zou, J.
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2021-04-07
- Volume
- 592
- Issue
- 7855
- Pages
- 629-633
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W3140760072
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 41
- FWCI
- 34.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating eligibility criteria of oncology trials using real-world data and AI. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41586-021-03430-5
- The paper
- Liu, R., Rizzo, S., Whipple, S., Pal, N., Pineda, A. L., Lu, M., Arnieri, B., Lu, Y., Capra, W., Copping, R., & Zou, J. (2021). Evaluating eligibility criteria of oncology trials using real-world data and AI. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03430-5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
