Shen, C. et al. Underperformance of contemporary phase III oncology trials and strategies for improvement. J. Natl Compr. Canc Netw. 19, 1072–1080 (2021).
Google Scholar
Zhou, Y. et al. Dynamic clinical trial success rates for drugs in the 21st century. Nat. Commun. 16, 9537 (2025).
Google Scholar
Olawade, D. B. et al. Artificial intelligence in clinical trials: a comprehensive review of opportunities, challenges, and future directions. Int. J. Med. Inf. 206, 106141 (2026).
Google Scholar
Lamp, S. J. & Mazza, G. L. Expected vs observed effect sizes for survival endpoints in phase 3 oncology trials. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 117, 1938–1941 (2025).
Google Scholar
Azenkot, T. et al. Artificial intelligence and machine learning innovations to improve design and representativeness in oncology clinical trials. ASCO Educ. Book 45, 3 (2025).
Cascini, F. et al. Scoping review of the current landscape of AI-based applications in clinical trials. Front. Public Health 10, 949377 (2022).
Google Scholar
Shah, P. et al. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in clinical development: a translational perspective. NPJ Digit. Med. 2, 69 (2019).
Google Scholar
Saady, M. et al. Implementation of artificial intelligence approaches in oncology clinical trials: a systematic review. Artif. Intell. Med. 161, 103066 (2025).
Google Scholar
Chow, R. et al. Use of artificial intelligence for cancer clinical trial enrollment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 115, 365–374 (2023).
Google Scholar
Benbow, J. H. & Kim, E. S. Harnessing artificial intelligence to transform clinical trials and cancer care: opportunities and challenges. Cancer J. 31, e0796 (2025).
Google Scholar
Zhang, K. et al. Artificial intelligence in drug development. Nat. Med. 31, 45–59 (2025).
Google Scholar
Singh, R. et al. How AI is used in FDA-authorized medical devices: a taxonomy across 1,016 authorizations. NPJ Digit. Med. 8, 388 (2025).
Google Scholar
Kurbegov, D. et al. Recommendations to streamline and standardize clinical trial site feasibility assessments: an ASCO research statement. JCO Oncol. Pract. 17, 41–51 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kirkwood, M. K. et al. State of geographic access to cancer treatment trials in the United States: are studies located where patients live? JCO Oncol. Pract. 21, 427–437 (2025).
Google Scholar
Afrin, L. B., Oates, J. C. & Kamen, D. L. Improving clinical trial accrual by streamlining the referral process. Int. J. Med. Inf. 84, 15–23 (2015).
Google Scholar
Stensland, K. D. et al. Adult cancer clinical trials that fail to complete: an epidemic? J. Natl Cancer Inst. 106, 9 (2014).
Google Scholar
Chen, L. et al. Screening intervention to identify eligible patients and improve accrual to phase II-IV oncology clinical trials. J. Oncol. Pract. 9, e174–e181 (2013).
Google Scholar
Hardy-Werbin, M., González Gallardo, S., García-Mosquera, J. J. & Arriola Aperribay, E. Equitable access to oncology clinical trials: harnessing technology to reduce geographic disparities. ESMO Real World Data Digital Oncol. 2, 100006 (2023).
Google Scholar
Mehari, M. et al. Predicting therapeutic clinical trial enrollment for adult patients with low- and high-grade glioma using supervised machine learning. Sci. Adv. 11, eadt 5708 (2025).
Google Scholar
Tien, H. D., Masquelier, A., Lee, N. E. & Crowther, J. Deep learning-based prediction of clinical trial enrollment with uncertainty estimates. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.23607 (2025).
Google Scholar
Chakraborty, S. TOPSIS and modified TOPSIS: a comparative analysis. Decis. Analytics J. 2, 100021 (2022).
Google Scholar
Hulstaert, L., Twick, I., Sarsour, K. & Verstraete, H. Enhancing site selection strategies in clinical trial recruitment using real-world data modeling. PLoS One 19, e0300109 (2024).
Google Scholar
Fadiel, A., Eichenbaum, K. D., Abbasi, M., Lee, N. K. & Odunsi, K. Utilizing geospatial artificial intelligence to map cancer disparities across health regions. Sci. Rep. 14, 7693 (2024).
Google Scholar
Liu, R. et al. Evaluating eligibility criteria of oncology trials using real-world data and AI. Nature 592, 629–633 (2021).
Google Scholar
Jreich, R., Zhang, H., Meng, Z. & Wang, F. Evaluating the robustness of an AI pathfinder application on eligibility criteria in multiple myeloma trials using real-world data and historical trials. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 13, e230164 (2024).
Google Scholar
Wang, Z., Xiao, C. & Sun, J. Autotrial: prompting language models for clinical trial design. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.11366 (2023).
Google Scholar
Unger, J. M., Vaidya, R., Hershman, D. L., Minasian, L. M. & Fleury, M. E. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the magnitude of structural, clinical, and physician and patient barriers to cancer clinical trial participation. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 111, 245–255 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kim, E. S. et al. Broadening eligibility criteria to make clinical trials more representative: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research joint research statement. J. Clin. Oncol. 35, 3737–3744 (2017).
Google Scholar
Andrade, C. Target trial emulation: a concept simply explained. J. Clin. Psychiatry 86, 1 (2025).
Google Scholar
Cashin, A. G. et al. Transparent reporting of observational studies emulating a target trial-the TARGET statement. JAMA 334, 1084–1093 (2025).
Google Scholar
Liddicoat, J. E. et al. A policy framework for leveraging generative AI to address enduring challenges in clinical trials. NPJ Digital Med. 8, 33 (2025).
Google Scholar
Getz, K. A. et al. The impact of protocol amendments on clinical trial performance and cost. Ther. Innov. Regul. Sci. 50, 436–441 (2016).
Google Scholar
Maleki, M. & Ghahari, S. Clinical trials protocol authoring using LLMs. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.05044 (2024).
Google Scholar
Haoyang, L. et al. TrialGenie: empowering clinical trial design with agentic intelligence and real-world data. Preprint at medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.17.25326033 (2025).
Google Scholar
O’Dwyer, P. J. et al. The NCI-MATCH trial: lessons for precision oncology. Nat. Med. 29, 1349–1357 (2023).
Google Scholar
Clark, A. S. et al. Neoadjuvant T-DM1/pertuzumab and paclitaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab for HER2+ breast cancer in the adaptively randomized I-SPY2 trial. Nat. Commun. 12, 6428 (2021).
Google Scholar
Halabi, S., Choi, T., Garrett-Mayer, E., Schilsky, R. L. & Trippa, L. Incorporating data from multiple ongoing trials for Bayesian two-stage phase II single-arm studies. Clin. Trials 22, 667–675 (2025).
Google Scholar
Mangat, P. K. et al. Rationale and design of the targeted agent and profiling utilization registry (TAPUR) study. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2, 1–14 https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.18.00122 (2018).
Google Scholar
Halabi, S. & Niedzwiecki, D. Advancing precision oncology through biomarker-driven trials: theory vs. practice. Chance 32, 23–31 (2019).
Google Scholar
Woodcock, J. & LaVange, L. M. Master protocols to study multiple therapies, multiple diseases, or both. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 62–70 (2017).
Google Scholar
Markey, N., El-Mansouri, I., Rensonnet, G., van Langen, C. & Meier, C. From RAGs to riches: utilizing large language models to write documents for clinical trials. Clin. Trials 22, 626–631 (2025).
Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). M15 General Principles for Model-Informed Drug Development, FDA MIDD https://www.fda.gov/media/184747/download (2024).
Arai, R. J. et al. Personalizing precision oncology clinical trials in latin america: an expert panel on challenges and opportunities. Oncologist 24, e709–e719 (2019).
Google Scholar
Hashmi, M. et al. Single-arm oncology trials and the nature of external controls arms. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 10, 1052–1066 (2021).
Google Scholar
Eckardt, J. N. et al. Mimicking clinical trials with synthetic acute myeloid leukemia patients using generative artificial intelligence. NPJ Digit. Med. 7, 76 (2024).
Google Scholar
Tan, K. et al. Emulating control arms for cancer clinical trials using external cohorts created from electronic health record-derived real-world data. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 111, 168–178 (2022).
Google Scholar
Loiseau, N. et al. External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 22, 335 (2022).
Google Scholar
Sadique, Z. et al. A machine-learning approach for estimating subgroup- and individual-level treatment effects: an illustration using the 65 trial. Med. Decis. Mak. 42, 923–936 (2022).
Google Scholar
Rippin, G. et al. A review of causal inference for external comparator arm studies. Drug. Saf. 45, 815–837 (2022).
Google Scholar
Eckardt, J. N. et al. Artificial intelligence-generated synthetic data for cancer research and clinical trials. Nat. Rev. Cancer 26, 351–363 (2026).
Google Scholar
Elvatun, S., Knoors, D., Brant, S., Jonasson, C. & Nygård, J. F. Synthetic data as external control arms in scarce single-arm clinical trials. PLoS Digit. Health 4, e0000581 (2025).
Google Scholar
Sarkar, A. R. et al. De-identification is not enough: a comparison between de-identified and synthetic clinical notes. Sci. Rep. 14, 29669 (2024).
Google Scholar
Arondekar, B. et al. Real-world evidence in support of oncology product registration: a systematic review of new drug application and biologics license application approvals from 2015-2020. Clin. Cancer Res. 28, 27–35 (2022).
Google Scholar
Farah, E., Kenney, M., Warkentin, M. T., Cheung, W. Y. & Brenner, D. R. Examining external control arms in oncology: a scoping review of applications to date. Cancer Med. 13, e7447 (2024).
Google Scholar
Wedam, S. et al. FDA approval summary: palbociclib for male patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 26, 1208–1212 (2020).
Google Scholar
Rambaldi, A. et al. Blinatumomab compared with standard of care for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed/refractory Philadelphia chromosome-positive B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer 126, 304–310 (2020).
Google Scholar
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Considerations for the Design and Conduct of Externally Controlled Trials for Drug and Biological Products https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/considerations-design-and-conduct-externally-controlled-trials-drug-and-biological-products (2023).
Knapen, D. G., van Kruchten, M., de Groot, D. J. A., Broekman, K. E. & Fehrmann, R. S. N. Artificial intelligence for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis: a narrative review,. ESMO Real World Data Digital Oncol. 11, 100682 (2026).
Google Scholar
Wang, Z. et al. PyTrial: machine learning software and benchmark for clinical trial applications. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.04018 (2023).
Google Scholar
Fu, T., Huang, K., Xiao, C., Glass, L. M. & Sun, J. HINT: hierarchical interaction network for clinical-trial-outcome predictions. Patterns 3, 100445 (2022).
Google Scholar
Wang, Z., Xiao, C. & Sun, J. SPOT: sequential predictive modeling of clinical trial outcome with meta-learning. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.05352 (2023).
Google Scholar
Aliper, A. et al. Prediction of clinical trials outcomes based on target choice and clinical trial design with multi-modal artificial intelligence. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 114, 972–980 (2023).
Google Scholar
Unger, J. M., Shulman, L. N., Facktor, M. A., Nelson, H. & Fleury, M. E. National estimates of the participation of patients with cancer in clinical research studies based on commission on cancer accreditation data. J. Clin. Oncol. 42, 2139–2148 (2024).
Google Scholar
Gueguen, L., Olgiati, L., Brutti-Mairesse, C., Sans, A., Le Texier, V. & Verlingue, L. A prospective pragmatic evaluation of automatic trial matching tools in a molecular tumor board. NPJ Precis. Oncol. 9, 28 (2025).
Google Scholar
Roberts, K., Demner-Fushman, D., Voorhees, E. M., Bedrick, S., Hersh, W. R. Overview of the TREC 2022 clinical trials track. Proceedings of the Thirty-First Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2022), NIST Special Publication 500–338 (TREC, 2022).
Jullien, M., Valentino, M., Frost, H., O’Regan, P., Landers, D. & Freitas, A. NLI4CT: multi-evidence natural language inference for clinical trial reports. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.03598 (2023).
Google Scholar
Jin, Q. et al. Matching patients to clinical trials with large language models. Nat. Commun. 15, 9074 (2024).
Google Scholar
Loaiza-Bonilla, A. et al. Transforming oncology clinical trial matching through neuro-symbolic, multi-agent AI and an oncology-specific knowledge graph: a prospective evaluation in 3804 patients. ESMO Real World Data Digital Oncol. 12, 100706 (2026).
Google Scholar
Beck, J. T. et al. Artificial intelligence tool for optimizing eligibility screening for clinical trials in a large community cancer center. JCO Clin. Cancer Inf. 4, 50–59 (2020).
Bickell, N. A. et al. Implementation of a rule-based algorithm to find patients eligible for cancer clinical trials. JAMIA Open 7, ooae131 (2024).
Google Scholar
Rosenthal, J. T. et al. AI-assisted workflow enables rapid, high-fidelity breast cancer clinical trial eligibility prescreening. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.05696 (2025).
Google Scholar
Parikh, R. B. et al. Human-AI teaming to improve accuracy and efficiency of eligibility criteria prescreening for oncology trials: a randomized evaluation trial using retrospective electronic health records. Nat. Commun. 17, 2306 (2026).
Google Scholar
Kehl, K. L. et al. Identifying oncology clinical trial candidates using artificial intelligence predictions of treatment change: a pilot implementation study. JCO Precis. Oncol. 8, e2300507 (2024).
Google Scholar
Oo, V. F. et al. 20P Prospective pilot study of AI-assisted clinical trial matching system. ESMO Open 10, 105366 (2025).
Google Scholar
Jiby, J. T. et al. A prospective study comparing AI-based clinical trial eligibility screening with traditional EMR-based screening. J. Clin. Oncol. 42, e13636 (2024).
Google Scholar
Mazor, T. et al. Clinical trial notifications triggered by artificial intelligence–detected cancer progression: a randomized trial. JAMA Netw. Open 8, e252013 (2025).
Google Scholar
Altreuter, J. MatchMiner-AI: an open-source solution for cancer clinical trial matching. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.17228 (2024).
Google Scholar
La Rosa, A. et al. ‘The truth is, we must miss some’: a qualitative study of the patient eligibility screening process, and automation perspectives, for cancer clinical trials. Cancer Med. 13, e70466 (2024).
Google Scholar
Haddad, T. et al. Accuracy of an artificial intelligence system for cancer clinical trial eligibility screening: retrospective pilot study. JMIR Med. Inform. 9, e27767 (2021).
Google Scholar
von Itzstein, M. S. et al. Application of information technology to clinical trial evaluation and enrollment: a review. JAMA Oncol. 7, 1559–1566 (2021).
Google Scholar
Gong, G. et al. Clinical trial patient matching: a real-time, common data model and artificial intelligence-driven system for semiautomated patient prescreening in cancer clinical trials. JCO Clin. Cancer Inf. 10, e2500262 (2026).
Liang, F., Peng, L., Wu, Z., Giamas, G. & Stebbing, J. Design and reporting of phase III oncology trials with prospective biomarker validation. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 115, 174–180 (2023).
Google Scholar
Almuradova, E. et al. From dose-finding to dose-optimization in early-phase oncology clinical trials. Cancer Treat. Rev. 136, 102906 (2025).
Google Scholar
Jiang, Z., Sun, W., Du, R. & Yang, R. A review of dose escalation for FDA-approved products treating solid tumors and hematological malignancies in first-in-human trials. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 26, 2116–2125 (2024).
Google Scholar
Yuan, Y. et al. Bayesian optimal interval design: a simple and well-performing design for phase I oncology trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 22, 4291–4301 (2016).
Google Scholar
Thall, P. F. et al. Novel clinical trial designs with dose optimization to improve long-term outcomes. Clin. Cancer Res. 29, 4549–4554 (2023).
Google Scholar
Yuan, S., Huang, Z., Liu, J. & Ji, Y. Pharmacometrics-enabled DOse OPtimization (PEDOOP) for seamless phase I-II trials in oncology. J. Biopharm. Stat. 36, 59–78 (2026).
Google Scholar
Teplytska, O. et al. Machine learning methods for precision dosing in anticancer drug therapy: a scoping review. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 63, 1221–1237 (2024).
Google Scholar
De Carlo, A., Tosca, E. M., Fantozzi, M. & Magni, P. Reinforcement learning and PK-PD models integration to personalize the adaptive dosing protocol of erdafitinib in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 115, 825–838 (2024).
Google Scholar
Lee, K. J. & Ji, Y. Precision dose-finding design for phase I oncology trials by integrating pharmacology data. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.05120 (2025).
Google Scholar
Fang, C., Zhou, P., Zhang, X., He, Y. & Yang, Q. Artificial intelligence in oncology drug development and management: a precision medicine perspective. Front. Oncol. 15, 1609827 (2025).
Google Scholar
Blasiak, A. et al. Personalized dose selection platform for patients with solid tumors in the precise curate. AI feasibility trial. NPJ Precis. Oncol. 9, 49 (2025).
Google Scholar
Hauck, C. L., Kelechi, T. J., Cartmell, K. B. & Mueller, M. Trial-level factors affecting accrual and completion of oncology clinical trials: a systematic review. Contemp. Clin. Trials Commun. 24, 100843 (2021).
Google Scholar
Pfeffer, M., Deneris, M., Shelley, A., Salcuni, P. & Altomare, I. Utility of automated data transfer for cancer clinical trials and considerations for implementation. ESMO Real World Data Digit. Oncol. 7, 100112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmorw.2025.100112 (2025).
Google Scholar
Gauthier, M. P. et al. Automating access to real-world evidence. JTO Clin. Res. Rep. 3, 100340 (2022).
Google Scholar
Miller, T. P. et al. Automated electronic health record data extraction and curation using ExtractEHR. JCO Clin. Cancer Inf. 8, e2400100 (2024).
Huang, F. et al. Advancing the use of longitudinal electronic health records: tutorial for uncovering real-world evidence in chronic disease outcomes. J. Med. Internet Res. 27, e71873 (2025).
Google Scholar
Cappello, G. et al. A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice. Insights Imaging 14, 220 (2023).
Google Scholar
Xu, W., Gu, B., Lotter, W. E. & Kehl, K. L. Extraction and imputation of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status from unstructured oncology notes using language models. JCO Clin. Cancer Inf. 8, e2300269 (2024).
Jung, E., Jain, H., Sinha, A. P. & Gaudioso, C. Building a specialized lexicon for breast cancer clinical trial subject eligibility analysis. Health Inform. J. 27, 1460458221989392 (2021).
Google Scholar
Inan, O. T. et al. Digitizing clinical trials. NPJ Digital Med. 3, 101 (2020).
Google Scholar
Sim, J. et al. Natural language processing with machine learning methods to analyze unstructured patient-reported outcomes derived from electronic health records: a systematic review. Artif. Intell. Med. 146, 102701 (2023).
Google Scholar
Aiyegbusi, O. L. et al. Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection. Nat. Commun. 13, 6026 (2022).
Google Scholar
Chow, R. et al. The use of wearable devices in oncology patients: a systematic review. Oncologist 29, e419–e430 (2024).
Google Scholar
Acosta, J. N., Falcone, G. J., Rajpurkar, P. & Topol, E. J. Multimodal biomedical AI. Nat. Med. 28, 1773–1784 (2022).
Google Scholar
Piccinin, C. et al. Flexibility in patient-reported outcome and health-related quality of life measurement: the EORTC Quality of Life Group measurement strategy. Eur. J. Cancer 220, 115392 (2025).
Google Scholar
Llave, K. et al. Meaningful differences and changes for five patient-reported outcomes measurement information system domains in a large cohort of patients with cancer. Cancer 132, e70219 (2026).
Google Scholar
Piccinin, C. et al. Recommendations on the use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome measurement in oncology trials: findings from an international, multidisciplinary working group. Lancet Oncol. 24, e86–e95 (2023).
Google Scholar
Phipps, J. et al. Early adverse physiological event detection using commercial wearables: challenges and opportunities. NPJ Digital Med. 7, 136 (2024).
Google Scholar
Scheid, M. R., Friedmann, B., Oppenheim, M., Hirsch, J. S. & Zanos, T. P. Development and validation of a clinical wearable deep learning based continuous inhospital deterioration prediction model. Nat. Commun. 16, 9513 (2025).
Google Scholar
Brouwer, C. G. et al. Machine learning-based prediction of clinical outcomes in patients with cancer receiving systemic treatment using step count data measured with smartphones. JCO Clin. Cancer Inf. 9, e2500023 (2025).
Friesner, I. D. et al. Machine learning-based prediction of hospitalization during chemoradiotherapy with daily step counts. JAMA Oncol. 10, 642–647 (2024).
Google Scholar
Grant, R. C. et al. Machine learning-based early warning systems for acute care utilization during systemic therapy for cancer. J. Natl Compr. Canc Netw. 21, 1029–1037 (2023).
Google Scholar
Giangregorio, C. et al. Automatic cough analysis for non-small cell lung cancer detection. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC58623.2025.11254401 (2025).
Google Scholar
Mooney, K. et al. Essential components of an electronic patient-reported symptom monitoring and management system: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw. Open 7, e2433153 (2024).
Google Scholar
Basch, E. et al. Effect of electronic symptom monitoring on patient-reported outcomes among patients with metastatic cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 327, 2413–2422 (2022).
Google Scholar
Norwood, P., Davidian, M. & Laber, E. Adaptive randomization methods for sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMARTS) via Thompson sampling. Biometrics 3, 4 (2024).
Yazzourh, S., Savy, N., Saint-Pierre, P. & Kosorok, M. R. Medical knowledge integration into reinforcement learning algorithms for dynamic treatment regimes. Int. Stat. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/insr.12617 (2025).
Google Scholar
Song, Y. & Wang, L. Multiobjective tree-based reinforcement learning for estimating tolerant dynamic treatment regimes. Biometrics 80, 1 (2024).
Google Scholar
Wang, J. & Tiwari, R. Optimal dose selection in phase I/II dose finding trial with contextual bandits: a case study and practical recommendations. J. Biopharm. Stat. 36, 107–133 (2025).
Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. et al. DOD-BART: machine learning-based dose optimization design incorporating patient-level prognostic factors via Bayesian additive regression trees. J. Biopharm. Stat. https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2024.2429463 (2024).
Google Scholar
Gallagher, K. et al. Mathematical model-driven deep learning enables personalized adaptive therapy. Cancer Res. 84, 1929–1941 (2024).
Google Scholar
Ravi, R. & Kesari, H. V. Novel study designs in precision medicine — basket, umbrella and platform trials. Curr. Rev. Clin. Exp. Pharmacol. 17, 114–121 (2022).
Google Scholar
European Medicines Agency. ICH E20 Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials — Scientific Guideline https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/ich-e20-adaptive-designs-clinical-trials-scientific-guideline (2025).
US Food and Drug Administration. Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials of Drugs and Biologics: Guidance for Industry https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/adaptive-design-clinical-trials-drugs-and-biologics-guidance-industry (2019).
Murthy, V. H., Krumholz, H. M. & Gross, C. P. Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA 291, 2720–2726 (2024).
Google Scholar
Karim, S. et al. Generalisability of common oncology clinical trial eligibility criteria in the real world. Clin. Oncol. 31, e160–e166 (2019).
Google Scholar
Orcutt, X. et al. Evaluating generalizability of oncology trial results to real-world patients using machine learning-based trial emulations. Nat. Med. 31, 457–465 (2025).
Google Scholar
Westreich, D., Edwards, J. K., Lesko, C. R., Stuart, E. & Cole, S. R. Transportability of trial results using inverse odds of sampling weights. Am. J. Epidemiol. 186, 1010–1014 (2017).
Google Scholar
Sadée, C. et al. Medical digital twins: enabling precision medicine and medical artificial intelligence. Lancet Digital Health 7, 100864 (2025).
Google Scholar
Vallée, A. Digital twin for healthcare systems. Front. Digit. Health 5, 1253050 (2023).
Google Scholar
Asghar, U. S. & Chung, C. Application of digital twins for personalized oncology. Nat. Rev. Cancer 25, 823–825 (2025).
Google Scholar
Susilo, M. E. et al. Systems-based digital twins to help characterize clinical dose-response and propose predictive biomarkers in a phase I study of bispecific antibody, mosunetuzumab, in NHL. Clin. Transl. Sci. 16, 1134–1148 (2023).
Google Scholar
Wang, H. et al. From virtual patients to digital twins in immuno-oncology: lessons learned from mechanistic quantitative systems pharmacology modeling. NPJ Digit. Med. 7, 189 (2024).
Google Scholar
Lammert, J. et al. Large language models-enabled digital twins for precision medicine in rare gynecological tumors. NPJ Digit. Med. 8, 420 (2025).
Google Scholar
Bouriga, R. et al. Advances and critical aspects in cancer treatment development using digital twins. Brief. Bioinforma. 26, bbaf237 (2025).
Google Scholar
Zech, P. et al. Model-based digital twin engineering: insights, challenges, and future directions. Softw. Syst. Model. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-026-01368-8 (2026).
Google Scholar
Laubenbacher, R. et al. Digital twins in medicine. Nat. Comput. Sci. 4, 184–191 (2024).
Google Scholar
Hernán, M. A. & Robins, J. M. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am. J. Epidemiol. 183, 758–764 (2016).
Google Scholar
Tikhomirov, L. et al. A scoping review of silent trials for medical artificial intelligence. Nat. Health 1, 532–554 (2026).
Google Scholar
Kwong, J. C. C. et al. The silent trial – the bridge between bench-to-bedside clinical AI applications. Front. Digit. Health 4, 929508 (2022).
Google Scholar
Rosenthal, J. T., Beecy, A. & Sabuncu, M. R. Rethinking clinical trials for medical AI with dynamic deployments of adaptive systems. NPJ Digit. Med. 8, 252 (2025).
Google Scholar
Verhagen, C. T. et al. Understanding unrealized trial enrollments following patient-to-trial matching with large language models. Surgery 191, 109915 (2026).
Google Scholar
Westerman, G. et al. Enterprise-level AI screening for oncology trials: improving patient identification with OncoLLM. J. Clin. Oncol. 43, e13706 (2025).
Google Scholar
Halabi, S. & Kelly, W. K. The changing landscape of clinical research and trials. In: Oncology Clinical Trials: Successful Design, Conduct, and Analysis 2 ed (eds Kelly, W. K. & Halabi, S.) 1–11 (Springer Publishing Company, 2018).
Perni, S. et al. Assessment of use, specificity, and readability of written clinical informed consent forms for patients with cancer undergoing radiotherapy. JAMA Oncol. 5, e190260 (2019).
Google Scholar
Wu, D. T. et al. Assessing the readability of clinicaltrials.gev. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 23, 269–275 (2016).
Google Scholar
Aristizabal, P. et al. Social determinants of health and informed consent comprehension for pediatric cancer clinical trials. JAMA Netw. Open 6, e2346858 (2023).
Google Scholar
Goodson, N. et al. Opportunities and counterintuitive challenges for decentralized clinical trials to broaden participant inclusion. NPJ Digit. Med. 5, 58 (2022).
Google Scholar
Aiyegbusi, O. L. et al. Recommendations to promote equity, diversity and inclusion in decentralized clinical trials. Nat. Med. 30, 3075–3084 (2024).
Google Scholar
Cohen, E., Byrom, B., Becher, A., Jörntén-Karlsson, M. & Mackenzie, A. K. Comparative effectiveness of econsent: systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 25, e43883 (2023).
Google Scholar
Politi, M. C. et al. Decision aids can support cancer clinical trials decisions: results of a randomized trial. Oncologist 21, 1461–1470 (2016).
Google Scholar
Gao, M. et al. The use of large language models to enhance cancer clinical trial educational materials. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 9, pkaf021 (2025).
Google Scholar
Lee, P., Bubeck, S. & Petro, J. Benefits, limits, and risks of GPT-4 as an AI chatbot for medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 388, 1233–1239 (2023).
Google Scholar
Robinson, K. A., Dennison, C. R., Wayman, D. M., Pronovost, P. J. & Needham, D. M. Systematic review identifies number of strategies important for retaining study participants. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 60, 757 (2007).
Google Scholar
Cicin, F. N. & Cicin, I. Integrating mhealth innovations into decentralized oncology trials. J. Med. Syst. 49, 103 (2025).
Google Scholar
Rajkomar, A., Hardt, M., Howell, M. D., Corrado, G. & Chin, M. H. Ensuring fairness in machine learning to advance health equity. Ann. Intern. Med. 169, 866–872 (2018).
Google Scholar
Obermeyer, Z. et al. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366, 447–453 (2019).
Google Scholar
Chinta, S. V. et al. AI-driven healthcare: a review on ensuring fairness and mitigating bias. PLoS Digital Health 4, e0000864 (2025).
Google Scholar
Dankwa-Mullan, I. & Weeraratne, D. Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies in cancer care: addressing disparities, bias, and data diversity. Cancer Discov. 12, 1423–1427 (2022).
Google Scholar
DeCamp, M. & Lindvall, C. Latent bias and the implementation of artificial intelligence in medicine. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 27, 2020–2023 (2020).
Google Scholar
Lawson McLean, A. & Hristidis, V. Evidence-based analysis of ai chatbots in oncology patient education: implications for trust, perceived realness, and misinformation management. J. Canc Educ. 40, 482–489 (2025).
Google Scholar
Lekadir, K. et al. FUTURE-AI: international consensus guideline for trustworthy and deployable artificial intelligence in healthcare. BMJ 388, e081554 (2025).
Google Scholar
Schwabe, D., Becker, K., Seyferth, M., Klaß, A. & Schaeffter, T. The METRIC-framework for assessing data quality for trustworthy AI in medicine: a systematic review. NPJ Digit. Med. 7, 203 (2024).
Google Scholar
Koch, L. M., Baumgartner, C. F. & Berens, P. Distribution shift detection for the postmarket surveillance of medical AI algorithms: a retrospective simulation study. NPJ Digit. Med. 7, 120 (2024).
Google Scholar
Subasri, V. et al. Detecting and remediating harmful data shifts for the responsible deployment of clinical AI models. JAMA Netw. Open 8, e2513685 (2025).
Google Scholar
Kore, A. et al. Empirical data drift detection experiments on real-world medical imaging data. Nat. Commun. 15, 1887 (2024).
Google Scholar
Feng, J. et al. Clinical artificial intelligence quality improvement: towards continual monitoring and updating of AI algorithms in healthcare. NPJ Digit. Med. 5, 66 (2022).
Google Scholar
Nazir, A. et al. LangTest: a comprehensive evaluation library for custom LLM and NLP models. Softw. Impacts 19, 100619 (2024).
Google Scholar
Tam, T. Y. C. et al. A framework for human evaluation of large language models in healthcare derived from literature review. NPJ Digital Med. 7, 258 (2024).
Google Scholar
Bommasani, R., Liang, P. & Lee, T. Holistic evaluation of language models. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1525, 140–146 (2023).
Google Scholar
Rivera, S. C. et al. Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT-AI extension. Nat. Med. 26, 1351–1363 (2020).
Google Scholar
Liu, X., Cruz Rivera, S., Moher, D., Calvert, M. J. & Denniston, A. K. Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extension. Nat. Med. 26, 1364–1374 (2020).
Google Scholar
European Commission. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI (European Commission, 2019).
European Medicines Agency. Reflection Paper on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Lifecycle of Medicines https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/reflection-paper-use-artificial-intelligence-lifecycle-medicines (2023).
Vasey, B. et al. Reporting guideline for the early-stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI. Nat. Med. 28, 924–933 (2022).
Google Scholar
Collins, G. S. et al. TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. BMJ 385, e078378 (2024).
Google Scholar
Moons, K. G. M. et al. PROBAST+AI: an updated quality, risk of bias, and applicability assessment tool for prediction models using regression or artificial intelligence methods. BMJ 388, e082505 (2025).
Google Scholar
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Considerations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence to Support Regulatory Decision-making for Drug and Biological Products. Draft Guidance for Industry (FDA, 2025).
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada & the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Good Machine Learning Practice for Medical Device Development: Guiding Principles https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/medical-devices/good-machine-learning-practice-medical-device-development.html (2021).
Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (Japan). Report on AI-based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) https://www.pmda.go.jp/files/000266100.pdf (2023).
Han, Y., Ceross, A. & Bergmann, J. Regulatory frameworks for ai-enabled medical device software in china: comparative analysis and review of implications for global manufacturer. JMIR AI 3, e46871 (2024).
Google Scholar
Tan, R. K. J. et al. Digital approaches to enhancing community engagement in clinical trials. NPJ Digit. Med. 5, 37 (2022).
Google Scholar
Askin, S., Burkhalter, D., Calado, G. & El Dakrouni, S. Artificial intelligence applied to clinical trials: opportunities and challenges. Health Technol. 13, 203–213 (2023).
Google Scholar
Prelaj, A. et al. APOLLO11:a bio-data-driven model for clinical and translational research in lung cancer. NPJ Precis. Oncol. 10, 96 (2026).
Google Scholar
