We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
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.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.