Abstract
Introduction Clinical trials advance the forefront of medical knowledge and rely on consistent patient accrual for success. However, patient screening for clinical trials is resource intensive. There is a need to increase the scalability of trial recruitment while maintaining or improving upon the sensitivity of the current process. We hypothesized we could use a state-of-the-art large language model (LLM), prompt engineering, and publicly available clinical trial data to predict patient eligibility for trials from clinic notes. Here, we present pilot data demonstrating the accuracy of this tool in a cohort of patients being evaluated for pancreas cancer treatment.
Methods Patients who were screened for clinical trials at a single institution were studied. An LLM application was developed using LangChain and the GPT-4o model to assist in clinical trial screening. Deidentified patient data from clinical notes and trial eligibility criteria from ClinicalTrials.gov were used as inputs. For each patient, the model determined inclusion or exclusion with respect to selected eligibility criteria as well as nine clinical trials. Model responses were graded programmatically against a human rater standard. Time elapsed and cost for running each analysis were recorded.
Results Of the 24 patients in the test set, 19 were eligible for at least one trial. There were 43 eligible patient-trial matches in the data set. Our model correctly predicted 39 out of 42 (90.7%) of these matches. There were 105 individual eligibility criteria evaluated per patient for a total of 2520 binary criteria. GPT-4o agreed with the raters for 2,438 out of 2,520 (96.7%) binary eligibility criteria. Sensitivity to overall trial eligibility ranged from 87.5% to 100% for 8 out of 9 trials. Specificity ranged from 73.3% to 100% over all nine trials. The median cost for screening a patient was 0.67 USD (0.63-0.74). Median time elapsed was 137.66 seconds (130.04-146.04). Median total token usage across three assistants was 112,266.5 tokens (102,982.0-122,174.2).
Conclusion Overall, this model showed high sensitivity and specificity in using minimally processed free-text clinical notes to screen patients for appropriate clinical trials using a fraction of the time and cost of existing screening mechanisms. Results showed promise with a small cohort, and future studies are needed to assess its accuracy with a larger sample of patients and trials. This study represents the frontier of pitting of emerging large language model technology against the historically unruly terrain of the electronic medical record, suggesting that the imperfection of free-text clinical notes only slightly hinders the performance of a general-use model compared to previous performance on preprocessed data. These findings highlight that using this tool directly on clinical notes could complement human screening efforts to improve patient accrual at a low time and monetary cost.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the VP&S Student Research Program.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB of Columbia University gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding Statement: This work was funded by the VP&S Student Research.
Conflicts of Interest: G.A.M. reports funding from Genentech Roche, Merck, Plexxikon, Regeneron, and BioLineRx, consulting fees for Arcus Bioscience, BioLineRx, and Ipsen, and advisory board member for Pfizer, Revolution Medicine, and CEND Pharm. Consultant for EnGeneIC Inc.
Data Sharing: This study is not a clinical trial.
Ethics Statement: Ethical approval for human subjects research was provided by the Columbia University IRB for this work (IRB#AAAD4969).
AI-Assisted Technologies: No AI-assisted technologies were used to produce any drafts of this manuscript.
Latest version of manuscript including edits for clarity, inclusion of supplementary materials and data, and addition of Figure 1A for depiction of workflow.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors