Evaluation of Clinical Trials Reporting Quality using Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04338v1
• Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2025 20:01:28 GMT
• Title: Evaluation of Clinical Trials Reporting Quality using Large Language Models
• Authors: Mathieu Laï-king, Patrick Paroubek,
• Abstract summary: We create an evaluation corpus from two studies on abstract reporting quality with CONSORT-abstract standards.<n>We then evaluate the ability of different large generative language models to correctly assess CONSORT criteria.<n>Our best combination of model and prompting method achieves 85% accuracy.
• Score: 0.9453554184019106
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Reporting quality is an important topic in clinical trial research articles, as it can impact clinical decisions. In this article, we test the ability of large language models to assess the reporting quality of this type of article using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). We create CONSORT-QA, an evaluation corpus from two studies on abstract reporting quality with CONSORT-abstract standards. We then evaluate the ability of different large generative language models (from the general domain or adapted to the biomedical domain) to correctly assess CONSORT criteria with different known prompting methods, including Chain-of-thought. Our best combination of model and prompting method achieves 85% accuracy. Using Chain-of-thought adds valuable information on the model's reasoning for completing the task.

Related papers

• Position: Thematic Analysis of Unstructured Clinical Transcripts with Large Language Models [5.398283020969301]
  Large language models (LLMs) can support thematic analysis of unstructured clinical transcripts.<n>Existing evaluation methods vary widely, hindering progress and preventing meaningful benchmarking across studies.<n>We propose an evaluation framework centered on three dimensions: validity, reliability, and interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T04:02:00Z)
• Clinically Grounded Agent-based Report Evaluation: An Interpretable Metric for Radiology Report Generation [32.410641778559544]
  ICARE (Interpretable and Clinically-grounded Agent-based Report Evaluation) is an interpretable evaluation framework.<n>Two agents, each with either the ground-truth or generated report, generate clinically meaningful questions and quiz each other.<n>By linking scores to question-answer pairs, ICARE enables transparent, and interpretable assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T18:28:03Z)
• Mind the Gap: Benchmarking LLM Uncertainty, Discrimination, and Calibration in Specialty-Aware Clinical QA [4.501692468580528]
  We evaluate uncertainty estimation methods for clinical question answering (QA) focusing.<n>We present a case study introducing a novel lightweight method based on behavioral features derived from reasoning-oriented models.<n>Our findings reveal that uncertainty reliability is not a monolithic property, but one that depends on clinical specialty and question type.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T14:48:25Z)
• LlaMADRS: Prompting Large Language Models for Interview-Based Depression Assessment [75.44934940580112]
  This study introduces LlaMADRS, a novel framework leveraging open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate depression severity assessment.<n>We employ a zero-shot prompting strategy with carefully designed cues to guide the model in interpreting and scoring transcribed clinical interviews.<n>Our approach, tested on 236 real-world interviews, demonstrates strong correlations with clinician assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-07T08:49:04Z)
• Named Clinical Entity Recognition Benchmark [2.9332007863461893]
  This report introduces a Named Clinical Entity Recognition Benchmark. It addresses the crucial natural language processing (NLP) task of extracting structured information from clinical narratives. The leaderboard provides a standardized platform for assessing diverse language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T14:00:18Z)
• RaTEScore: A Metric for Radiology Report Generation [59.37561810438641]
  This paper introduces a novel, entity-aware metric, as Radiological Report (Text) Evaluation (RaTEScore) RaTEScore emphasizes crucial medical entities such as diagnostic outcomes and anatomical details, and is robust against complex medical synonyms and sensitive to negation expressions. Our evaluations demonstrate that RaTEScore aligns more closely with human preference than existing metrics, validated both on established public benchmarks and our newly proposed RaTE-Eval benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T17:49:28Z)
• Towards Efficient Patient Recruitment for Clinical Trials: Application of a Prompt-Based Learning Model [0.7373617024876725]
  Clinical trials are essential for advancing pharmaceutical interventions, but they face a bottleneck in selecting eligible participants. The complex nature of unstructured medical texts presents challenges in efficiently identifying participants. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the performance of a prompt-based large language model for the cohort selection task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-24T20:42:28Z)
• AutoTrial: Prompting Language Models for Clinical Trial Design [53.630479619856516]
  We present a method named AutoTrial to aid the design of clinical eligibility criteria using language models. Experiments on over 70K clinical trials verify that AutoTrial generates high-quality criteria texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T01:04:16Z)
• Investigating Crowdsourcing Protocols for Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Summaries [59.27273928454995]
  Current pre-trained models applied to summarization are prone to factual inconsistencies which misrepresent the source text or introduce extraneous information. We create a crowdsourcing evaluation framework for factual consistency using the rating-based Likert scale and ranking-based Best-Worst Scaling protocols. We find that ranking-based protocols offer a more reliable measure of summary quality across datasets, while the reliability of Likert ratings depends on the target dataset and the evaluation design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-19T19:05:00Z)
• GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
  We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics. Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation. It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)
• Semi-supervised Medical Image Classification with Relation-driven Self-ensembling Model [71.80319052891817]
  We present a relation-driven semi-supervised framework for medical image classification. It exploits the unlabeled data by encouraging the prediction consistency of given input under perturbations. Our method outperforms many state-of-the-art semi-supervised learning methods on both single-label and multi-label image classification scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-15T06:57:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.