Trial reportNature communications2025
A large language model for clinical outcome adjudication from telephone follow-up interviews: a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Automated adjudication of clinical outcomes from telephone follow-ups is crucial for reducing workload and increasing data quality in large-scale trials. Here, we show that a domain-specific large language model (Fu-LLM) effectively automates the preadjudication of key clinical events-including death, hospitalization, and medication use-based on 1,046 vignettes of follow-up telephone interviews conducted across three centers in a randomized clinical trial (China CT-FFR Study 3). Fu-LLM outperforms not only state-of-the-art general-purpose LLMs (e.g. GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-4o, DeepSeek-v3, Claude 3.5-Sonnet, and Gemini-2.0-Pro) and conventional machine learning models (Support Vector Machine), but also human adjudicators in a silico human-model comparative study. It also shows greater robustness than different versions of GPT-4 do in temporal drift tests. Our findings demonstrate that Fu-LLM can significantly streamline outcome identification in clinical trials, offering a scalable and accurate tool for automating labour-intensive adjudication processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.