Coming out soon
We have developed an AI tool called the Clinical Trial Risk Tool which allows a user to upload a trial protocol and which categorises the protocol as high, medium, or low risk of ending without delivering informative results.
When a pharmaceutical company develops a drug, it needs to pass through several phases of clinical trials before it can be approved by regulators.
Before the trial is run, the drug developer writes a document called a protocol. This contains key information about how long the trial will run for, what is the risk to participants, what kind of treatment is being investigated, etc.
The tool is open-source under MIT licence and it does not save any of your data.
Currently, professionals at a funding organisation read the protocols and perform a subjective assessment of the trial’s cost, complexity, and risk of ending uninformatively.
One of the most common causes of a trial ending uninformatively is underpowering. There are several indicators of high risk of uninformativeness which can be identified in a protocol, such as a lack of and or an inadequate statistical analysis plan, use of non-standard endpoints, or the use of cluster randomisation. Low-risk trials are often run by well-known institutions with external funding and an international or intercontinental array of sites. These indicators can be referred to as features or parameters.
If you would like to cite the tool alone, you can cite:
Wood TA and McNair D., Clinical Trial Risk Tool: software application using natural language processing to identify the risk of trial uninformativeness. Gates Open Res 2023, 7:56 doi: 10.12688/gatesopenres.14416.1.
A BibTeX entry for LaTeX users is
@article{Wood_2023,
doi = {10.12688/gatesopenres.14416.1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.12688%2Fgatesopenres.14416.1},
year = 2023,
month = {apr},
publisher = {F1000 Research Ltd},
volume = {7},
pages = {56},
author = {Thomas A Wood and Douglas McNair},
title = {Clinical Trial Risk Tool: software application using natural language processing to identify the risk of trial uninformativeness},
journal = {Gates Open Research}
}Blog
Guest post by Safeer Khan, Lecturer at Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Government College University, Lahore, Pakistan Introduction The success of a clinical trial is strongly dependent on the structure and coordination of the teams managing it. Given the high stakes and significant impact of every decision made during the trial, it is essential for each team member to collaborate efficiently in order to meet strict deadlines, comply with regulations, and ensure reliable results.
Guest post by Youssef Soliman, medical student at Assiut University and biostatistician Clinical trial protocols are detailed master-plans of a study – often 100–200 pages long – outlining objectives, design, procedures, eligibility and analysis. Reading them cover-to-cover can be daunting and time-consuming. Yet careful review is essential. Protocols are the “backbone” of good research, ensuring trials are safe for participants and scientifically valid [1]. Fortunately, there are systematic strategies to speed up review and keep it objective.
Introduction People have asked us often, how was the Clinical Trial Risk Tool trained? Does it just throw documents into ChatGPT? Or conversely, is it just an expert system, where we have painstakingly crafted keyword matching rules to look for important snippets of information in unstructured documents? Most of the tool is built using machine learning techniques. We either hand-annotated training data, or took training data from public sources. How We Trained the Models inside the Clinical Trial Risk Tool The different models inside the Clinical Trial Risk tool have been trained on real data, mostly taken from clinical trial repositories such as clinicaltrials.