Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
Asunto de la revista
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Am Med Inform Assoc ; 31(2): 375-385, 2024 Jan 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37952206

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: We aim to build a generalizable information extraction system leveraging large language models to extract granular eligibility criteria information for diverse diseases from free text clinical trial protocol documents. We investigate the model's capability to extract criteria entities along with contextual attributes including values, temporality, and modifiers and present the strengths and limitations of this system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The clinical trial data were acquired from https://ClinicalTrials.gov/. We developed a system, AutoCriteria, which comprises the following modules: preprocessing, knowledge ingestion, prompt modeling based on GPT, postprocessing, and interim evaluation. The final system evaluation was performed, both quantitatively and qualitatively, on 180 manually annotated trials encompassing 9 diseases. RESULTS: AutoCriteria achieves an overall F1 score of 89.42 across all 9 diseases in extracting the criteria entities, with the highest being 95.44 for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and the lowest of 84.10 for breast cancer. Its overall accuracy is 78.95% in identifying all contextual information across all diseases. Our thematic analysis indicated accurate logic interpretation of criteria as one of the strengths and overlooking/neglecting the main criteria as one of the weaknesses of AutoCriteria. DISCUSSION: AutoCriteria demonstrates strong potential to extract granular eligibility criteria information from trial documents without requiring manual annotations. The prompts developed for AutoCriteria generalize well across different disease areas. Our evaluation suggests that the system handles complex scenarios including multiple arm conditions and logics. CONCLUSION: AutoCriteria currently encompasses a diverse range of diseases and holds potential to extend to more in the future. This signifies a generalizable and scalable solution, poised to address the complexities of clinical trial application in real-world settings.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Procesamiento de Lenguaje Natural , Humanos , Femenino , Almacenamiento y Recuperación de la Información , Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Lenguaje , Determinación de la Elegibilidad/métodos
2.
medRxiv ; 2024 May 13.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38798420

RESUMEN

Background: Initial insights into oncology clinical trial outcomes are often gleaned manually from conference abstracts. We aimed to develop an automated system to extract safety and efficacy information from study abstracts with high precision and fine granularity, transforming them into computable data for timely clinical decision-making. Methods: We collected clinical trial abstracts from key conferences and PubMed (2012-2023). The SEETrials system was developed with four modules: preprocessing, prompt modeling, knowledge ingestion and postprocessing. We evaluated the system's performance qualitatively and quantitatively and assessed its generalizability across different cancer types- multiple myeloma (MM), breast, lung, lymphoma, and leukemia. Furthermore, the efficacy and safety of innovative therapies, including CAR-T, bispecific antibodies, and antibody-drug conjugates (ADC), in MM were analyzed across a large scale of clinical trial studies. Results: SEETrials achieved high precision (0.958), recall (sensitivity) (0.944), and F1 score (0.951) across 70 data elements present in the MM trial studies Generalizability tests on four additional cancers yielded precision, recall, and F1 scores within the 0.966-0.986 range. Variation in the distribution of safety and efficacy-related entities was observed across diverse therapies, with certain adverse events more common in specific treatments. Comparative performance analysis using overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) highlighted differences among therapies: CAR-T (ORR: 88%, 95% CI: 84-92%; CR: 95%, 95% CI: 53-66%), bispecific antibodies (ORR: 64%, 95% CI: 55-73%; CR: 27%, 95% CI: 16-37%), and ADC (ORR: 51%, 95% CI: 37-65%; CR: 26%, 95% CI: 1-51%). Notable study heterogeneity was identified (>75% I 2 heterogeneity index scores) across several outcome entities analyzed within therapy subgroups. Conclusion: SEETrials demonstrated highly accurate data extraction and versatility across different therapeutics and various cancer domains. Its automated processing of large datasets facilitates nuanced data comparisons, promoting the swift and effective dissemination of clinical insights.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA