使用大型语言模型来增强癌症临床试验教材。

IF 3.4 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Mingye Gao, Aman Varshney, Shan Chen, Vikram Goddla, Jack Gallifant, Patrick Doyle, Claire Novack, Maeve Dillon-Martin, Teresia Perkins, Xinrong Correia, Erik Duhaime, Howard Isenstein, Elad Sharon, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann, David Kozono, Brian Anthony, Dmitriy Dligach, Danielle S Bitterman
{"title":"使用大型语言模型来增强癌症临床试验教材。","authors":"Mingye Gao, Aman Varshney, Shan Chen, Vikram Goddla, Jack Gallifant, Patrick Doyle, Claire Novack, Maeve Dillon-Martin, Teresia Perkins, Xinrong Correia, Erik Duhaime, Howard Isenstein, Elad Sharon, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann, David Kozono, Brian Anthony, Dmitriy Dligach, Danielle S Bitterman","doi":"10.1093/jncics/pkaf021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adequate patient awareness and understanding of cancer clinical trials is essential for trial recruitment, informed decision making, and protocol adherence. Although large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for patient education, their role in enhancing patient awareness of clinical trials remains unexplored. This study explored the performance and risks of LLMs in generating trial-specific educational content for potential participants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Generative Pretrained Transformer 4 (GPT4) was prompted to generate short clinical trial summaries and multiple-choice question-answer pairs from informed consent forms from ClinicalTrials.gov. Zero-shot learning was used for summaries, using a direct summarization, sequential extraction, and summarization approach. One-shot learning was used for question-answer pairs development. We evaluated performance through patient surveys of summary effectiveness and crowdsourced annotation of question-answer pair accuracy, using held-out cancer trial informed consent forms not used in prompt development.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For summaries, both prompting approaches achieved comparable results for readability and core content. Patients found summaries to be understandable and to improve clinical trial comprehension and interest in learning more about trials. The generated multiple-choice questions achieved high accuracy and agreement with crowdsourced annotators. For both summaries and multiple-choice questions, GPT4 was most likely to include inaccurate information when prompted to provide information that was not adequately described in the informed consent forms.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LLMs such as GPT4 show promise in generating patient-friendly educational content for clinical trials with minimal trial-specific engineering. The findings serve as a proof of concept for the role of LLMs in improving patient education and engagement in clinical trials, as well as the need for ongoing human oversight.</p>","PeriodicalId":14681,"journal":{"name":"JNCI Cancer Spectrum","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The use of large language models to enhance cancer clinical trial educational materials.\",\"authors\":\"Mingye Gao, Aman Varshney, Shan Chen, Vikram Goddla, Jack Gallifant, Patrick Doyle, Claire Novack, Maeve Dillon-Martin, Teresia Perkins, Xinrong Correia, Erik Duhaime, Howard Isenstein, Elad Sharon, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann, David Kozono, Brian Anthony, Dmitriy Dligach, Danielle S Bitterman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jncics/pkaf021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adequate patient awareness and understanding of cancer clinical trials is essential for trial recruitment, informed decision making, and protocol adherence. Although large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for patient education, their role in enhancing patient awareness of clinical trials remains unexplored. This study explored the performance and risks of LLMs in generating trial-specific educational content for potential participants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Generative Pretrained Transformer 4 (GPT4) was prompted to generate short clinical trial summaries and multiple-choice question-answer pairs from informed consent forms from ClinicalTrials.gov. Zero-shot learning was used for summaries, using a direct summarization, sequential extraction, and summarization approach. One-shot learning was used for question-answer pairs development. We evaluated performance through patient surveys of summary effectiveness and crowdsourced annotation of question-answer pair accuracy, using held-out cancer trial informed consent forms not used in prompt development.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For summaries, both prompting approaches achieved comparable results for readability and core content. Patients found summaries to be understandable and to improve clinical trial comprehension and interest in learning more about trials. The generated multiple-choice questions achieved high accuracy and agreement with crowdsourced annotators. For both summaries and multiple-choice questions, GPT4 was most likely to include inaccurate information when prompted to provide information that was not adequately described in the informed consent forms.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LLMs such as GPT4 show promise in generating patient-friendly educational content for clinical trials with minimal trial-specific engineering. The findings serve as a proof of concept for the role of LLMs in improving patient education and engagement in clinical trials, as well as the need for ongoing human oversight.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14681,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JNCI Cancer Spectrum\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JNCI Cancer Spectrum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkaf021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JNCI Cancer Spectrum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkaf021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:充分的患者意识和理解癌症临床试验对于试验招募、知情决策和方案遵守至关重要。虽然大型语言模型(llm)在患者教育方面表现出了希望,但它们在提高患者对临床试验的认识方面的作用仍未得到探索。本研究探讨了法学硕士在为潜在参与者生成试验特定教育内容方面的表现和风险。方法:GPT4被提示从ClinicalTrials.gov上的知情同意书(icf)中生成简短的临床试验摘要和多选择问答对。Zero-shot学习用于总结,使用直接总结,顺序提取和总结方法。一次性学习用于问答配对发展。我们通过对总结有效性的患者调查和对问答对准确性的众包注释来评估性能,使用未用于即时开发的癌症试验ICFs。结果:对于摘要,两种提示方法在可读性和核心内容方面取得了相当的结果。患者发现总结是可以理解的,并且提高了对临床试验的理解和学习更多试验的兴趣。生成的选择题具有较高的准确性,并与众包注释器一致。对于摘要和多项选择题,当提示GPT4提供ICFs中没有充分描述的信息时,GPT4最有可能包含不准确的信息。结论:像GPT4这样的llm在为临床试验生成对患者友好的教育内容方面表现出了希望,它只需要最少的试验特异性工程。这些发现证明了法学硕士在改善患者教育和参与临床试验方面的作用,以及持续的人类监督的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The use of large language models to enhance cancer clinical trial educational materials.

Background: Adequate patient awareness and understanding of cancer clinical trials is essential for trial recruitment, informed decision making, and protocol adherence. Although large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for patient education, their role in enhancing patient awareness of clinical trials remains unexplored. This study explored the performance and risks of LLMs in generating trial-specific educational content for potential participants.

Methods: Generative Pretrained Transformer 4 (GPT4) was prompted to generate short clinical trial summaries and multiple-choice question-answer pairs from informed consent forms from ClinicalTrials.gov. Zero-shot learning was used for summaries, using a direct summarization, sequential extraction, and summarization approach. One-shot learning was used for question-answer pairs development. We evaluated performance through patient surveys of summary effectiveness and crowdsourced annotation of question-answer pair accuracy, using held-out cancer trial informed consent forms not used in prompt development.

Results: For summaries, both prompting approaches achieved comparable results for readability and core content. Patients found summaries to be understandable and to improve clinical trial comprehension and interest in learning more about trials. The generated multiple-choice questions achieved high accuracy and agreement with crowdsourced annotators. For both summaries and multiple-choice questions, GPT4 was most likely to include inaccurate information when prompted to provide information that was not adequately described in the informed consent forms.

Conclusions: LLMs such as GPT4 show promise in generating patient-friendly educational content for clinical trials with minimal trial-specific engineering. The findings serve as a proof of concept for the role of LLMs in improving patient education and engagement in clinical trials, as well as the need for ongoing human oversight.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
JNCI Cancer Spectrum Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
80
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信