Bridging Probabilistic LLMs and Deterministic Statistical Validation: The PROVE Multi-Agent Framework for Clinical Trial Reporting
Abstract
Ensuring the accuracy and consistency of clinical trial Tables, Figures, and Listings (TFLs) remains a major challenge in regulatory reporting. Independent programming and manual review are essential quality-control practices, but cross-output verification still depends heavily on reviewer inspection and may miss structural, logical, or arithmetic discrepancies. Large language models (LLMs) can help interpret varied table language and navigate lengthy study documents, but they are not reliable substitutes for programmed statistical checks. We introduce PROVE (Programmatic Reporting and Output Verification Engine), an auditable framework that uses optional LLM and retrieval support for table interpretation while reserving numerical and logical decisions for programmed validators. PROVE links findings to source evidence, supports cross-output consistency checks, and allows LLM use to be enabled or disabled based on study requirements. We evaluated PROVE using ten replicated synthetic oncology reporting packages generated from raw data through SDTM, ADaM, and TFL outputs, with paired clean and discrepancy-injected packages; each replicate included 15 randomly injected discrepancies. We examined two table-label settings: exact labels matching the validator vocabulary and labels with similar clinical meaning but different wording. Within the implemented rule classes, all automated PROVE variants achieved perfect classification in the exact-label setting. In the label-variation…
Read the paper
Related studies
- Comparative effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Adverse effects of cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors on renal and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials
- Benefits and harms of drug treatment for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of statins as a class and of specific statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review, meta‐analysis, and network meta‐analysis of randomized trials with 94,283 participants
- Screen time increases overweight and obesity risk among adolescents: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
- Exposure to WHO AWaRe antibiotics and isolation of multi-drug resistant bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.