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.
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
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 group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| AI-alone | Not described Receives: Other: Chart review | |
| Human-alone | Not described Receives: Other: Chart review | |
| Human + AI | Not described Receives: Other: Chart review |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
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)
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.
- First posted19 Aug 2024
- Study start18 Aug 2023
- Primary completion12 Jul 2024
- Study completion12 Jul 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of PennsylvaniaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Pennsylvania
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Mendel AI
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
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
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- 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
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 Jul 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Assessing the Performance of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Augmented Electronic Health Record (EHR) Data Abstraction for Clinical Trial Patient Screening
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06561217
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 854016
- Conditions
- Cancer
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 355 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of PennsylvaniaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Mendel AI
- Study start
- 18 Aug 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 12 Jul 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 12 Jul 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 19 Aug 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 25 Jul 2025
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
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.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| AI-alone | – | Other: Chart review |
| Human-alone | – | Other: Chart review |
| Human + AI | – | Other: Chart review |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- 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).
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- 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.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- None.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Chart reviewChart review | Other | AI-alone, Human + AI, Human-alone |
Primary outcome
Abstracted Chart-level Accuracy
Time frame: 1 year
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.
1 secondary outcome
Efficiency of Chart-level Abstraction (in Minutes)
Time frame: 1 year
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 Jul 2025.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41634037Parikh 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.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. No individual participant data will be shared.
Related trials for Cancer
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Hepatic Artery Infusion of Carfilzomib in Participants With Liver Metastatic Disease Previously Treated With Hepatic Artery Infusion Pump Therapy
Colorectal Neoplasms, Neoplasms
RecruitingPhase 2
Tafasitamab With Acalabrutinib and Venetoclax for the Treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma
Active, not recruitingPhase 1/2
Selumetinib in Treating Young Patients With Recurrent or Refractory Low Grade Glioma
Low Grade Glioma, Recurrent Childhood Pilocytic Astrocytoma
Enrolling by invitationPhase 2
A Single-Arm Study of Nimotuzumab Combined With NALIRIFOX as First-Line Treatment for Pancreatic Cancer
Pancreatic Cancer Metastatic
Recruiting
Methylation Profiling in Self-Samples for Identification of (Epi)Genetic Biomarkers for Gynecological Cancers
Gynaecological Cancers, Ovarian Cancer
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
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.