AzTrials
AzTrials

CancerNCT06561217

Assessing the Performance of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Augmented Electronic Health Record (EHR) Data Abstraction for Clinical Trial Patient Screening

An observational study of Cancer, run by University of Pennsylvania at 2 sites in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Identifying eligible patients is a key process in the clinical trial enterprise. Currently, this process relies on time-intensive manual chart review, creating a rate-limiting step for trial participation. The integration of AI technology into the trial screening process has potential to improve participation rates. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Any age
Conditions the study is for
Cancer
What is being tested?
Chart review
How many people
355 participants
Where
2 sitesUnited States
Study dates
18 Aug 2023to 12 Jul 2024
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages Any age
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Study population: De-identified patient charts from community oncology practices, with a diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC).

Who may be able to join

  • Diagnosis of colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer.
  • A minimum of 5 patient documents in the Mendel database.
  • Most recent document was within 5 years from the time of data extraction.

Who cannot join

  • None.

Trial locations and contacts

2 sites in 1 country.

United States2 sites
  • Emory University

    Atlanta, Georgia, 30307

  • University of Pennsylvania

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104

Other trials in United States

About this study

Identifying eligible patients is a key process in the clinical trial enterprise. Currently, this process relies on time-intensive manual chart review, creating a rate-limiting step for trial participation. The integration of AI technology into the trial screening process has potential to improve participation rates. This study aims to assess the performance (accuracy, efficiency) of AI-augmented patient identification and inform optimal integration into clinical research screening processes.

Read the detailed description

The objective of this study is to assess and compare the accuracy and efficiency of three different approaches to abstracting clinical data used to identify oncology patients who meet the inclusion criteria for participation in clinical trials. The three approaches under evaluation include: (1) an autonomous AI algorithm (Mendel AI; developed by artificial intelligence startup company Mendel) which analyzes patient medical records to extract relevant clinical facts ("AI-alone"); (2) a human researcher who manually reviews patient charts as per the current norm/practice ("Human-alone"); and (3) a human researcher utilizing AI augmentation ("Human+AI"), where Mendel AI serves as a supportive tool in the decision-making process by providing the researcher a list of elements abstracted by the AI algorithm and a rank-order list of patients most likely to meet inclusion criteria for a trial.

The study primarily aims to compare (1) the chart-level accuracy of the Human+AI collaboration relative to Human-alone given the relevance of this comparison for real-world clinical workflows, defined by the percentage of pre-identified chart elements classified correctly compared against a predetermined "gold standard"; and (2) the efficiency of the Human+AI vs. Human-alone arms, defined by the time per chart review in minutes, measured for each chart.

Our hypotheses are (1) the Human+AI arm will be non-inferior in accuracy when compared to the Human-alone arm, in relation to a predetermined "gold standard", and (2) that a Human+AI arm will be superior in efficiency of abstraction when compared to Human-alone screening.

The identification of eligible patients for clinical trials is a critical component of clinical research, as it directly impacts patient recruitment, study enrollment, and the generalizability of research findings. Currently, the process of identifying eligible patients often relies on manual chart review by clinical research staff, which can be time-consuming, labor-intensive, and prone to human error. Consequently, eligible patients may be overlooked, and opportunities for trial participation may be missed. The integration of AI technology into the patient identification process has the potential to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of this critical task, leading to improved clinical trial recruitment and outcomes.

This study holds important implications for the field of clinical research by evaluating the effectiveness of AI-augmented patient identification compared to traditional manual methods and autonomous AI algorithms. By examining the strengths and limitations of each approach, the study will provide valuable insights into the optimal integration of AI technology in clinical research processes. Furthermore, the results of this study have the potential to benefit patients by improving their access to clinical trials and increasing awareness of available treatment options. For clinical research institutions, enhancing the efficiency of patient identification can lead to more effective use of research resources and the potential for accelerated clinical trial timelines. Ultimately, the findings of this study may contribute to advancements in clinical research practices, promoting more equitable access to trials and facilitating the development of innovative treatments for patients with cancer.

Conditions
Cancer
Being tested
Chart review
Medical subject headings
Neoplasms

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Chart reviewOther

    Chart review

Study groups in NCT06561217
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
AI-aloneNot described
Receives: Other: Chart review
Human-aloneNot described
Receives: Other: Chart review
Human + AINot described
Receives: Other: Chart review

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Abstracted Chart-level Accuracy

    The primary outcome measured was mean chart-level accuracy, defined as the percentage of elements identified by clinical research coordinators among all elements in the gold-standard set, measured for each chart, and averaged across all charts. Research coordinator-abstracted responses were identified as being accurate when they exactly matched with the gold-standard set. The gold-standard set was determined by 2-3 clinicians blinded to experimental arms.

    Measured: 1 year

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. Efficiency of Chart-level Abstraction (in Minutes)

    Efficiency was calculated as the number of minutes spent on each chart abstraction.

    Measured: 1 year

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted19 Aug 2024
  2. Study start18 Aug 2023
  3. Primary completion12 Jul 2024
  4. Study completion12 Jul 2024

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Other
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrolment
355 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT06561217
Sponsor's protocol ID
854016
Status last verified
Jul 2025
First submitted
16 Aug 2024
Last updated
25 Jul 2025
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No: No individual participant data will be shared.

Publications

  • Parikh RB, Kolla L, Beothy EA, Ferrell WJ, Laventure B, Guido M, Girard A, Li Y, Dosoky KEM, Tarabishy K, Patel PS, Andalcio A, Maloney K, Mena JU, Salloum W, Chen J, Emanuel EJ. Human-AI teaming to improve accuracy and efficiency of eligibility criteria prescreening for oncology trials: a randomized evaluation trial using retrospective electronic health records. Nat Commun. 2026 Feb 3;17(1):2306. doi: 10.1038/s41467-026-68873-8.

    PubMed 41634037

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Cancer, run by University of Pennsylvania at 2 sites in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 Jul 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 2 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 25 Jul 2025). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Abstracted Chart-level Accuracy (time frame: 1 year). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06561217, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 25 Jul 2025.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in