The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Artificial Intelligence Tool for Optimizing Eligibility Screening for Clinical Trials in a Large Community Cancer Center
Abstract
PURPOSE: Less than 5% of patients with cancer enroll in clinical trials, and 1 in 5 trials are stopped for poor accrual. We evaluated an automated clinical trial matching system that uses natural language processing to extract patient and trial characteristics from unstructured sources and machine learning to match patients to clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records from 997 patients with breast cancer were assessed for trial eligibility at Highlands Oncology Group between May and August 2016. System and manual attribute extraction and eligibility determinations were compared using the percentage of agreement for 239 patients and 4 trials. Sensitivity and specificity of system-generated eligibility determinations were measured, and the time required for manual review and system-assisted eligibility determinations were compared. RESULTS: Agreement between system and manual attribute extraction ranged from 64.3% to 94.0%. Agreement between system and manual eligibility determinations was 81%-96%. System eligibility determinations demonstrated specificities between 76% and 99%, with sensitivities between 91% and 95% for 3 trials and 46.7% for the 4th. Manual eligibility screening of 90 patients for 3 trials took 110 minutes; system-assisted eligibility determinations of the same patients for the same trials required 24 minutes. CONCLUSION: In this study, the clinical trial matching system displayed a promising performance in screening patients with breast cancer for trial eligibility. System-assisted trial eligibility determinations were substantially faster than manual review, and the system reliably excluded ineligible patients for all trials and identified eligible patients for most trials.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT)-based tools have been used for subject matching across various diseases while struggling with generalizability [4–7].”
From Enhancing hepatopathy clinical trial efficiency: a secure, large language model-powered pre-screening pipeline (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“Systems parse biomarker requirements, prior therapies, and performance status from EHRs, identify potentially eligible patients, and flag candidates for screening [56,57,58,59,60,61,62].”
From Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Oncology: From Productivity Enhancement to Creative Discovery (2025) · cites this paper as [59]
Citations
Cites
Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis
Kruskal, W. H., & Wallis, W. A. (1952) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441 · Cited by 13,912
What can natural language processing do for clinical decision support?
Demner‐Fushman, D., Chapman, W. W., & McDonald, C. J. (2009) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2009.08.007 · Cited by 716
The Role of Clinical Trial Participation in Cancer Research: Barriers, Evidence, and Strategies
Unger, J. M., Cook, E., Tai, E., & Bleyer, A. (2016) · American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book · doi:10.1200/edbk_156686 · Cited by 665
Carlisle, B., Kimmelman, J., Ramsay, T., & MacKinnon, N. (2015) · Clinical Trials · doi:10.1177/1740774514558307 · Cited by 367
Adult cancer clinical trials that fail to complete: an epidemic?
Stensland, K. D., McBride, R. B., Latif, A., Wisnivesky, J., Hendricks, R., Roper, N., Boffetta, P., Hall, S. J., Oh, W. K., & Galsky, M. D. (2014) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/dju229 · Cited by 161
Ni, Y., Wright, J., Perentesis, J., Lingren, T., Deleger, L., Kaiser, M., Kohane, I., & Solti, I. (2015) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-015-0149-3 · Cited by 142
A National Cancer Clinical Trials System for the 21st Century
Board on Health Care Services (2010) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/12879 · Cited by 135
Ni, Y., Kennebeck, S., Dexheimer, J. W., McAneney, C. M., Tang, H., Lingren, T., Li, Q., Zhai, H., & Solti, I. (2014) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002887 · Cited by 115
Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, and Cancer
Kantarjian, H. M., & Yu, P. P. (2015) · JAMA Oncology · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1203 · Cited by 105
Enhancing Next-Generation Sequencing-Guided Cancer Care Through Cognitive Computing
Patel, N. M., Michelini, V. V., Snell, J. M., Balu, S., Hoyle, A. P., Parker, J. S., Hayward, M. C., Eberhard, D. A., Salazar, A. H., McNeillie, P., et al. (2017) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0170 · Cited by 103
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Shivade C, 2017, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 2016, 1149
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Artificial Intelligence and Human Trust in Healthcare: Focus on Clinicians
Asan, O., Bayrak, A. E., & Choudhury, A. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/15154 · Cited by 825
The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Early Cancer Diagnosis
Hunter, B., Hindocha, S., & Lee, R. W. (2022) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers14061524 · Cited by 384
Artificial intelligence applied to clinical trials: opportunities and challenges
Askin, S., Burkhalter, D., Calado, G., & El Dakrouni, S. (2023) · Health and Technology · doi:10.1007/s12553-023-00738-2 · Cited by 285
Current AI technologies in cancer diagnostics and treatment
Tiwari, A., Mishra, S. N., & Kuo, T. (2025) · Molecular Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12943-025-02369-9 · Cited by 257
Benefits and Risks of AI in Health Care: Narrative Review
Chustecki, M. (2024) · Interactive Journal of Medical Research · doi:10.2196/53616 · Cited by 208
“AI-powered programs can simulate and evaluate numerous potential treatments to predict their effectiveness against various diseases, optimizing the drug development process in clinical trials [34].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Beck, J. T., Rammage, M., Jackson, G. P., Preininger, A. M., Dankwa-Mullan, I., Roebuck, M. C., Torres, A., Holtzen, H., Coverdill, S. E., Williamson, M. P., Chau, Q., Rhee, K., & Vinegra, M.
- Affiliations
- Highlands Oncology Group (US)
- IBM (United States) (US)
- IBM Watson Health, IBM Corporation, Cambridge, MA
- RxEconomics, Hunt Valley, MD
- Novartis (United States) (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
- Published
- 2020-11
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 50-59
- ISSN
- 2473-4276 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3001688612
- Cited by
- 127
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 3.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Keywords
- clinical trial eligibility screening, natural language processing, machine learning, breast cancer, cancer clinical trials, trial accrual, attribute extraction
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Artificial Intelligence, Breast Neoplasms, Clinical Trials as Topic, Eligibility Determination, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Natural Language Processing, Patient Selection, Community Networks, Early Detection of Cancer
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
