Evidence Hub

Evaluating clinical trial inclusion/exclusion criteria from claims using generative artificial intelligence

Judith Mueller, Ravi B. Parikh, Andrew Noble

Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2023

92,895 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

e13566 Background: Increasing enrollment in oncology clinical trials (CTs) requires identification of trial-eligible patients from routine health data. However, identification of CT-eligible patients is limited by inadequate access to EHR and its relevant clinical features to evaluate inclusion/exclusion (I/E) criteria in large populations. Artificial Intelligence (AI) applied to large-scale administrative claims may accelerate pre-screening of large patient cohorts against common I/E criteria related to stage and performance status (PS). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 92,895 adult patients from ConcertAI’s real-world data: linked claims and deeply curated de-identified EHRs sourced from data-sharing agreements with 900+ community oncology clinics in the US. Patients had solid malignancies and an oncology encounter between January 6, 2014, and August 12, 2022. Patients with ≥1 claim record within one week of a PS entry and ≥25 claims within three years of a clinical encounter were included. We trained a Generative AI Transformer Model to predict good PS (ECOG 0-1 or Karnofsky 70-100) and stage IV disease at baseline, both of which are common inclusion criteria for therapeutic CTs in advanced malignancies. Model features included 7,745 timestamped claim codes and 8 time-independent demographic and socioeconomic variables. A state-of-the-art Generative AI Pre-trained Transformer Model was fine-tuned via compute-efficient transfer-learning to obtain…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 92,895 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

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.

Open this study Sign up free