Trends in AI and Human-AI Interaction in Clinical Trials -- A Hybrid Human-AI Exploration

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29096v1
• Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 20:56:36 GMT
• Title: Trends in AI and Human-AI Interaction in Clinical Trials -- A Hybrid Human-AI Exploration
• Abstract summary: The work also reports on an exploratory hybrid human-AI approach to analyzing human-AI interaction trends in registered clinical trials.<n>The findings indicate a marked increase in AI-related trials over time.<n>China and the United States accounted for the largest numbers of AI-related trials.
• Score: 0.043975202913406945
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper examines records retrieved from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry to characterize temporal trends in AI terminology and the geographical distribution of AI trials. The work also reports on an exploratory hybrid human-AI approach to analyzing human-AI interaction trends in registered clinical trials. The hybrid workflow comprised a frontier generative AI model (GPT-5.5) and human review to screen and categorize records returned by an AI-focused search. The findings indicate a marked increase in AI-related trials over time, with recent growth in references to machine learning, deep learning, chatbots, GPTs, and large language models. Geographically, China and the United States accounted for the largest numbers of AI-related trials, with notable recent increases in several other countries including Italy, France, Spain, the UK and Turkey (Türkiye). In a random sample of 100 records, human and AI classifiers showed good agreement in identifying studies not substantively using AI, but lower agreement in classifying human-AI interaction, particularly where health professional interaction was ambiguous or insufficiently described. Overall, the results suggest that hybrid human-AI screening of clinical trial records is potentially viable, but clearer trial reporting and more precise interaction definitions will benefit the process.

Related papers

• LLMography: Transforming Human-AI Conversations into Traceability, Oversight, and Auditability Indicators [0.0]
  This paper introduces a framework for transforming Human-AI conversations into measurable indicators of provenance, human contribution, AI dependency, and auditability.<n>We present a prototype that analyzes Human-AI conversation traces and generates reports including Human-AI co-production reports and a recommended LLMography label.<n>Most interactions were classified as Human-AI co-produced, with average scores of 86.8/100 for Human Direction, 81.9/100 for Prompt Quality, 72.8/100 for Auditability, and 77.1/100 for Final Output Traceability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-28T14:54:03Z)
• Characterizing initial human-AI proof formalization workflows [66.06866890889131]
  Advances in AI systems' ability to generate code and engage in increasingly high-level mathematical reasoning promise to transform people's ability to formalize and thereby verify proofs.<n>We conduct a mixed-methods analysis into the initial impact of AI on people's formalization.<n>A qualitative survey shows that people's preferences are diverse, but with a general desire for AI assistance in formalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T22:58:19Z)
• Consumer Attitudes Towards AI in Digital Health: A Mixed-Methods Survey in Australia [13.717970454143632]
  We report a mixed-methods survey study in Australia examining consumer readiness, acceptance, trust, and risk perceptions of healthcare AI.<n> participants expressed moderate optimism and strong perceived usefulness and ease of use, but also substantial concerns about accuracy, safety, and data use.<n>Findings show that consumers judge AI through concrete communication quality and visible human governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T11:35:36Z)
• Explainable AI as a Double-Edged Sword in Dermatology: The Impact on Clinicians versus The Public [46.86429592892395]
  explainable AI (XAI) addresses this by providing AI decision-making insight.<n>We present results from two large-scale experiments combining a fairness-based diagnosis AI model and different XAI explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-14T00:06:06Z)
• Why can't Epidemiology be automated (yet)? [0.0]
  We map the landscape of epidemiological tasks using existing datasets.<n>We identify where existing AI tools offer efficiency gains.<n>We demonstrate that recently developed agentic systems can now design and execute epidemiological analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-21T13:41:52Z)
• Beyond Black-Box AI: Interpretable Hybrid Systems for Dementia Care [2.4339626079536925]
  The recent boom of large language models (LLMs) has re-ignited the hope that artificial intelligence (AI) systems could aid medical diagnosis.<n>Despite dazzling benchmark scores, LLM assistants have yet to deliver measurable improvements at the bedside.<n>This scoping review aims to highlight the areas where AI is limited to make practical contributions in the clinical setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-02T01:43:06Z)
• Almost AI, Almost Human: The Challenge of Detecting AI-Polished Writing [55.2480439325792]
  This study systematically evaluations twelve state-of-the-art AI-text detectors using our AI-Polished-Text Evaluation dataset.<n>Our findings reveal that detectors frequently flag even minimally polished text as AI-generated, struggle to differentiate between degrees of AI involvement, and exhibit biases against older and smaller models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T18:45:37Z)
• Measuring Human Contribution in AI-Assisted Content Generation [66.06040950325969]
  This study raises the research question of measuring human contribution in AI-assisted content generation.<n>By calculating mutual information between human input and AI-assisted output relative to self-information of AI-assisted output, we quantify the proportional information contribution of humans in content generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-27T05:56:04Z)
• Generative AI in Writing Research Papers: A New Type of Algorithmic Bias and Uncertainty in Scholarly Work [0.38850145898707145]
  Large language models (LLMs) and generative AI tools present challenges in identifying and addressing biases. generative AI tools are susceptible to goal misgeneralization, hallucinations, and adversarial attacks such as red teaming prompts. We find that incorporating generative AI in the process of writing research manuscripts introduces a new type of context-induced algorithmic bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T04:05:04Z)
• Human-AI Coevolution [48.74579595505374]
  Coevolution AI is a process in which humans and AI algorithms continuously influence each other. This paper introduces Coevolution AI as the cornerstone for a new field of study at the intersection between AI and complexity science.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T18:10:54Z)
• The ethical ambiguity of AI data enrichment: Measuring gaps in research ethics norms and practices [2.28438857884398]
  This study explores how, and to what extent, comparable research ethics requirements and norms have developed for AI research and data enrichment. Leading AI venues have begun to establish protocols for human data collection, but these are are inconsistently followed by authors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T16:12:55Z)
• The Role of AI in Drug Discovery: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies [97.5153823429076]
  The benefits, challenges and drawbacks of AI in this field are reviewed. The use of data augmentation, explainable AI, and the integration of AI with traditional experimental methods are also discussed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-08T23:23:39Z)

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.