Recommending Clinical Trials for Online Patient Cases using Artificial Intelligence

Clinical trials are crucial for assessing new treatments; however, recruitment challenges - such as limited awareness, complex eligibility criteria, and referral barriers - hinder their success. With the growth of online platforms, patients increasingly turn to social media and health communities for support, research, and advocacy, expanding recruitment pools and established enrollment pathways. Recognizing this potential, we utilized TrialGPT, a framework that leverages a large language model (LLM) as its backbone, to match 50 online patient cases (collected from published case reports and a social media website) to clinical trials and evaluate performance against traditional keyword-based searches. Our results show that TrialGPT outperforms traditional methods by 46% in identifying eligible trials, with each patient, on average, being eligible for around 7 trials. Additionally, our outreach efforts to case authors and trial organizers regarding these patient-trial matches yielded highly positive feedback, which we present from both perspectives.

Matching Patients to Clinical Trials with Large Language Models

Clinical trials are vital in advancing drug development and evidence-based medicine, but their success is often hindered by challenges in patient recruitment. In this work, we investigate the potential of large language models (LLMs) to assist individual patients and referral physicians in identifying suitable clinical trials from an extensive selection. Specifically, we introduce TrialGPT, a novel architecture employing LLMs to predict criterion-level eligibility with detailed explanations, which are then aggregated for ranking and excluding candidate clinical trials based on free-text patient notes. We evaluate TrialGPT on three publicly available cohorts of 184 patients and 18,238 annotated clinical trials. The experimental results demonstrate several key findings: First, TrialGPT achieves high criterion-level prediction accuracy with faithful explanations. Second, the aggregated trial-level TrialGPT scores are highly correlated with expert eligibility annotations. Third, these scores prove effective in ranking clinical trials and exclude ineligible candidates. Our error analysis suggests that current LLMs still make some mistakes due to limited medical knowledge and domain-specific context understanding. Nonetheless, we believe the explanatory capabilities of LLMs are highly valuable. Future research is warranted on how such AI assistants can be integrated into the routine trial matching workflow in real-world settings to improve its efficiency.