ArticleJCO precision oncology2026
Matching Patients With Cell Surface-Targeted Clinical Trials Using Large Language Models.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCell surface-targeted therapies (CSTs) are a rapidly expanding class of cancer treatments with high specificity and reduced toxicity. Matching patients who express specific targets to CST clinical trials remains challenging because of complex eligibility criteria, diverse targets, and the absence of centralized, up-to-date trial databases. These gaps limit patient access and contribute to poor trial accrual.
methodsWe developed a large language model (LLM)-driven pipeline to identify and annotate CST clinical trials. Using a two-pronged approach, LLMs extracted target information from ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Cancer Institute Drug Database. Eight LLMs, including GPT-4o and several open-source models, were benchmarked against manually curated data sets of 814 CST trials and 814 non-CST trials. We evaluated model performance at target and trial levels and analyzed sources of error. We also provide an up-to-date database of open CST trials and their targets from the >100,000 total oncology clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov.
resultsGPT-4o achieved the highest accuracy in identifying CST trials (96.5%) and their targets (89.5%). Combining data sources improved performance, and accuracy increased with later trial phases. Most errors stemmed from vague therapy descriptions or string-matching issues. The model matched 94% of US trials and >95% of trials globally, with exceptions in China and New Zealand. In predicting cell surface localization, Gemma 3:27b and MedLlama3 correctly labeled all known clinical cell surface targets although performance varied beyond the most well-known CSTs.
conclusionOur LLM-based approach enables real-time, automated matching of patients to CST clinical trials, addressing major barriers to enrollment and expanding trial accessibility. Errors were uncommon, and performance is poised to improve as LLMs evolve. Optimizing patient-trial matching for CSTs can improve both patient benefit and trial success.
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.