Cited by 7Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationElectronic Health Records SystemsEthics in Clinical Research

Effect of a novel artificial intelligence (AI)–enabled multi-trial matching system on patient matching using real-world data

Open access
Kurnaz, Selin, Loaiza-Bonilla, Arturo, Carvallo Castañeda, Darla, Huner, Oz, Giritlioglu, Dersu, Precision Cancer Consortium·2024·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

e13501 Background: Currently clinical research teams at sites are manually matching patients to clinical trials, where each trial in our experience takes at least 25 minutes using highly trained dedicated resources. This limits cancer patients’ clinical trial options and enrollment rates. Moreover, the lack of NGS testing results may also negatively impact matching to clinical trials in targeted therapies. PCC, a consortium of 7 of the Top 20 Pharmaceutical companies, collaborated with Massive Bio to demonstrate how cancer patients’ matching rates can be increased if patients are prescreened to multiple trials simultaneously (i.e. multi-trial matching) instead of a single trial and NGS testing results are integrated into the matching process. Methods: Massive Bio has developed a first-in-class AI-enabled matching system to extract 180 structured clinical data from medical records using computer vision and natural language processing and a recommendation system for matching patients to parameterized inclusion/exclusion (I/E) criteria from over 14,000 actively recruiting interventional clinical trials.Our analysis included a sample of 5,707 cancer patients from the Massive Bio Synergy AI real-world database, corresponding to tumor types in 23 selected trials. We developed a decision-tree algorithm for retrospective matching analysis using modeled I/E criteria and compared these results to the theoretical matching rate (TMR) for each trial based on tumor type and biomarker prevalence, extent of disease at diagnosis and prior treatment history. Results: 690 patients matched to at least one trial were matched to 1.82 times more trials in multi-trial matching; 2.10 times more potential matches were obtained with hypothetical 100% NGS testing; and 99.9% matching time was reduced with AI enabled system; key findings are summarized (Table). Conclusions: This study confirms the underutilization of NGS technology and substantial benefits of AI and NGS in cancer trial matching. Their use resulted in a nearly two-fold increase in potential patient eligibility for trials, and an unprecedented reduction in manual effort, underscoring a significant advancement in the efficiency of the clinical trial matching process. A prospective country-wide analysis is under consideration.[Table: see text]

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 · 10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13501

Cites

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?

  • Many published trial-matching approaches remain retrospective, disease-limited, or optimized for text similarity and retrieval rather than auditable patient-trial execution over longitudinal records.

    “many published approaches remain retrospective, disease-limited, or optimized for text similarity and retrieval rather than auditable patient–trial execution over longitudinal records.”

    From Transforming oncology clinical trial matching through neuro-symbolic, multi-agent AI and an oncology-specific knowledge graph: a prospective evaluation in 3804 patients (2026) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Methods (p. 1) describe a retrospective matching analysis of cancer patients, supporting this paper as an example of a retrospective, disease-specific approach. The paper does not assess whether many published approaches share those limitations, nor does it characterize approaches as optimized for text similarity or retrieval rather than auditable execution over longitudinal records. (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.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kurnaz, S., Loaiza-Bonilla, A., Carvallo Castañeda, D., Huner, O., Giritlioglu, D., & Precision Cancer Consortium
Affiliations
  • Massive Bio, New York, NY
  • Capital Health Medical Center - Hopewell Campus, Pennington, NJ
  • Massive Bio Inc, New York, NY
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2024-06-01
Volume
42
Issue
16_suppl
Pages
e13501-e13501
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W4399150008
Cited by
7
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
Funders
The Precision Cancer Consortium
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
artificial intelligence, natural language processing, computer vision, recommender systems, next-generation sequencing, cancer clinical trials, inclusion and exclusion criteria, targeted therapy, real-world data, clinical trial recruitment

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