ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2026
AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.
Review in Nature reviews. Clinical 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oncology clinical trials are often characterized by slow accrual, high failure rates and limited generalizability, reflecting both biological complexity and operational inefficiencies. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) - enabled by large-scale electronic health record datasets and machine learning methods - offer new opportunities to address these challenges across the clinical trial lifecycle. In this Review, we discuss applications of AI across pre-trial design, trial conduct, and post-trial inference and generalization, highlighting how these tools can improve trial feasibility, support patient engagement and extend the relevance of trial findings. We also address cross-cutting challenges related to equity, data quality and drift, transparency, and regulatory oversight. The most immediate and evidence-supported role of AI in oncology trials lies in augmenting operational workflows under human oversight, particularly in the identification of candidate patients for enrollment, eligibility assessment, data extraction and trial monitoring (including remote patient and/or safety monitoring as well as monitoring of AI model performance and real-time trial data extraction) - applications that are now being implemented at select cancer centres. By contrast, AI applications designed to replace clinical evidence generation, such as synthetic control arms, outcome-prediction simulations and digital twins, remain at earlier stages of development, with limited prospective validation and unresolved methodological and regulatory challenges. Ultimately, we argue that achieving the potential of AI in oncology clinical trials will require rigorous prospective validation, harmonized regulatory standards, and coordination among clinicians, trialists, regulators, industry and patients.
Identifiers
42567955What 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.