↓ Skip to main content

Piloting an automated clinical trial eligibility surveillance and provider alert system based on artificial intelligence and standard data models

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Piloting an automated clinical trial eligibility surveillance and provider alert system based on artificial intelligence and standard data models
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12874-023-01916-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stéphane M. Meystre, Paul M. Heider, Andrew Cates, Grace Bastian, Tara Pittman, Stephanie Gentilin, Teresa J. Kelechi

Abstract

To advance new therapies into clinical care, clinical trials must recruit enough participants. Yet, many trials fail to do so, leading to delays, early trial termination, and wasted resources. Under-enrolling trials make it impossible to draw conclusions about the efficacy of new therapies. An oft-cited reason for insufficient enrollment is lack of study team and provider awareness about patient eligibility. Automating clinical trial eligibility surveillance and study team and provider notification could offer a solution. To address this need for an automated solution, we conducted an observational pilot study of our TAES (TriAl Eligibility Surveillance) system. We tested the hypothesis that an automated system based on natural language processing and machine learning algorithms could detect patients eligible for specific clinical trials by linking the information extracted from trial descriptions to the corresponding clinical information in the electronic health record (EHR). To evaluate the TAES information extraction and matching prototype (i.e., TAES prototype), we selected five open cardiovascular and cancer trials at the Medical University of South Carolina and created a new reference standard of 21,974 clinical text notes from a random selection of 400 patients (including at least 100 enrolled in the selected trials), with a small subset of 20 notes annotated in detail. We also developed a simple web interface for a new database that stores all trial eligibility criteria, corresponding clinical information, and trial-patient match characteristics using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) common data model. Finally, we investigated options for integrating an automated clinical trial eligibility system into the EHR and for notifying health care providers promptly of potential patient eligibility without interrupting their clinical workflow. Although the rapidly implemented TAES prototype achieved only moderate accuracy (recall up to 0.778; precision up to 1.000), it enabled us to assess options for integrating an automated system successfully into the clinical workflow at a healthcare system. Once optimized, the TAES system could exponentially enhance identification of patients potentially eligible for clinical trials, while simultaneously decreasing the burden on research teams of manual EHR review. Through timely notifications, it could also raise physician awareness of patient eligibility for clinical trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 14%
Unspecified 3 10%
Librarian 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 15 52%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 5 17%
Unspecified 3 10%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 16 55%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2023.
All research outputs
#19,165,235
of 23,750,517 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,809
of 2,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,865
of 344,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#34
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,750,517 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,099 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,375 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.