Automatic Matching Algorithms to Identify Eligible Participants for Stroke Trials: A Proof-of-Concept Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials often struggle to recruit enough participants, with only 10% of eligible patients enrolling. This is concerning for conditions like stroke, where timely decision-making is crucial. Frontline clinicians typically screen patients manually, but this approach can be overwhelming and lead to many eligible patients being overlooked. METHODS: To address the problem of efficient and inclusive screening for trials, we developed a matching algorithm using imaging and clinical variables gathered as part of the AcT trial (NCT03889249) to automatically screen patients by matching these variables with the trials' inclusion and exclusion criteria using rule-based logic. We then used the algorithm to identify patients who could have been enrolled in six trials: EASI-TOC (NCT04261478), CATIS-ICAD (NCT04142125), CONVINCE (NCT02898610), TEMPO-2 (NCT02398656), ESCAPE-MEVO (NCT05151172), and ENDOLOW (NCT04167527). To evaluate our algorithm, we compared our findings to the number of enrollments achieved without using a matching algorithm. The algorithm's performance was validated by comparing results with ground truth from a manual review of two clinicians. The algorithm's ability to reduce screening time was assessed by comparing it with the average time used by study clinicians. RESULTS: The algorithm identified more potentially eligible study candidates than the number of participants enrolled. It also showed over 90% sensitivity and specificity for all trials, and reducing screening time by over 100-fold. CONCLUSIONS: Automated matching algorithms can help clinicians quickly identify eligible patients and reduce resources needed for enrolment. Additionally, the algorithm can be modified for use in other trials and diseases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.077 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".