Cited by 33Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTopic ModelingBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies

From RAGs to riches: utilizing large language models to write documents for clinical trials

Open access
Markey, Nigel, El-Mansouri, Ilyass, Rensonnet, Gaetan, van Langen, Casper, Meier, Christoph·2025·Clinical Trials

Abstract

Background/Aims: Clinical trials require numerous documents to be written: Protocols, consent forms, clinical study reports, and many others. Large language models offer the potential to rapidly generate first-draft versions of these documents; however, there are concerns about the quality of their output. Here, we report an evaluation of how good large language models are at generating sections of one such document, clinical trial protocols. Methods: Using an off-the-shelf large language model, we generated protocol sections for a broad range of diseases and clinical trial phases. Each of these document sections we assessed across four dimensions: Clinical thinking and logic; Transparency and references; Medical and clinical terminology ; and Content relevance and suitability . To improve performance, we used the retrieval-augmented generation method to enhance the large language model with accurate up-to-date information, including regulatory guidance documents and data from ClinicalTrials.gov. Using this retrieval-augmented generation large language model, we regenerated the same protocol sections and assessed them across the same four dimensions. Results: We find that the off-the-shelf large language model delivers reasonable results, especially when assessing content relevance and the correct use of medical and clinical terminology , with scores of over 80%. However, the off-the-shelf large language model shows limited performance in clinical thinking and logic and transparency and references , with assessment scores of ≈40% or less. The use of retrieval-augmented generation substantially improves the writing quality of the large language model, with clinical thinking and logic and transparency and references scores increasing to ≈80%. The retrieval-augmented generation method thus greatly improves the practical usability of large language models for clinical trial-related writing. Discussion: Our results suggest that hybrid large language model architectures, such as the retrieval-augmented generation method we utilized, offer strong potential for clinical trial-related writing, including a wide variety of documents. This is potentially transformative, since it addresses several major bottlenecks of drug development.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/17407745251320806

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs offer a transformative approach to drafting research proposals.

    “LLMs offer a transformative approach to drafting research proposals [10].”

    From Leveraging AI Large Language Models for Writing Clinical Trial Proposals in Dermatology: Instrument Validation Study (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports strong potential for LLM-assisted clinical trial writing and substantial reductions in drafting time. The study assessed sections of clinical trial protocols, not research proposals generally, so the claim extends beyond the documents examined. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. [1]Sharma S. How to become a competent medical writer? Perspect Clin Res 2010; 1(1): 33– 37. 21829780 PMC3149406
  2. [2]Spence O Hong K Onwuchekwa Uba R, et al. Availability of study protocols for randomized trials published in high-impact medical journals: a cross-sectional analysis. Clin Trials 2020; 17(1): 99– 105. 31450958
  3. [3]Landray MJ Haynes R Reith C. Accelerating clinical trials: time to turn words into action. Lancet 2023; 402: 165– 168. 37307840
  4. [4]Markey N Howitt B El-Mansouri I, et al. Clinical trials are becoming more complex: a machine learning analysis of data from over 16,000 trials. Sci Rep 2024; 14: 3514. 38346965 PMC10861486
  5. [8]Wang Z Xiao C Sun J. AutoTrial: prompting language models for clinical trial design. arXiv 2023; 2305. 11366, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.11366 · arXiv
  6. [9]Patel SB Lam K. ChatGPT: the future of discharge summaries. Lancet Digit Health 2023; 5(3): e107–e108. 36754724
  7. [10]Huynh LM Bonebrake BT Schultis K, et al. New artificial intelligence ChatGPT performs poorly on the 2022 self-assessment study program for urology. Urol Pract 2023; 10(4): 409– 415. 37276372
  8. [11]Ghim JL Ahn S. Transforming clinical trials: the emerging roles of large language models. Transl Clin Pharmacol 2023; 31(3): 131– 138. 37810626 PMC10551746
  9. [12]OpenAI. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv 2023; abs/2303.08774, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.08774 · arXiv
  10. [13]Gao Y Xiong Y Gao X, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: a survey. arXiv 2023; 2312. 10997, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.10997 · arXiv
  11. [14]Lewis P Perez E Piktus A, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. Neural Inf Process Syst 2020; 793: 9459– 9474.
  12. [16]Renze M Guven E. Self-reflection in LLM agents: effects on problem-solving performance. arXiv 2024; 2405. 06682, https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.06682 · arXiv
  13. [19]Khan NS Senderovitz T Weatherall J, et al. Data science in pharmaceutical R&D: the DISRUPT-DS industry roundtable. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2024; 23(9): 645– 646. 39009831

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Markey, N., El-Mansouri, I., Rensonnet, G., van Langen, C., & Meier, C.
Affiliations
  • Boston Consulting Group (United States) (US)
  • Boston Consulting Group, Paris, France
  • Boston Consulting Group, London, UK
Corresponding author
Meier, Christoph
Venue
Clinical Trials
Published
2025-02-27
Volume
22
Issue
5
Pages
626-631
ISSN
  • 1740-7745 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-7753
OpenAlex
W4407991980
Cited by
33
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 5
FWCI
6.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
BCG’s Health Care practice and by BCG X, the firm’s in-house data science unit
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Keywords
large language models, retrieval-augmented generation, automated document generation, medical writing, clinical trial documentation, medical terminology, ClinicalTrials.gov, regulatory guidance documents, drug development
MeSH terms
Large Language Models, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Language, Terminology as Topic, Writing

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