Evidence mapPaperPMID 42414290Full record

ArticleNature communications2026

Empowering clinical trial design with agentic intelligence and real-world data.

Haoyang Li, Weishen Pan, Suraj Rajendran, Chengxi Zang, Fei Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A comprehensive survey of AI agents in healthcare.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Haoyang Li *Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Weishen Pan *Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Suraj Rajendran *Tri-Institutional Computational Biology & Medicine Program, Cornell University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8149-0157
Chengxi ZangDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8244-9551
Fei WangDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. few2001@med.cornell.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9459-9461

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical trial design (CTD) is a time-consuming process that requires substantial domain expertise. Large-scale real-world data (RWD), such as electronic health records (EHR), encodes practice-based evidence that is of tremendous value to CTD. In recent years, many machine learning methods have been developed to extract such real-world evidence (RWE) from the RWD to inform CTD, but they still need to be communicated with the domain experts extensively in an iterative manner to be further refined and ultimately useful. In this paper, we introduce EmulatRx, an agentic framework that derives RWE for helping with CTD. Through the iterative conversation and analysis across agents with different roles, EmulatRx can autonomously refine trial protocols and finally generate a robust report containing insights that inform better CTD. We applied EmulatRx on the CTD process for both acute diseases (e.g., septic shock, acute heart failure, acute pulmonary edema, and acute kidney injury) using the MIMIC-IV data and chronic diseases (e.g., Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease) using the INSIGHT Network across five New York City health systems. The results demonstrate EmulatRx's capabilities in facilitating and accelerating the CTD process.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical Trials as TopicResearch DesignElectronic Health RecordsHumansMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID42414290
PMCPMC13341881

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.