A Natural Language Processing Framework for Structuring and Visualizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria at Scale: Protocol for a Quantitative Study
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Clinical trial eligibility criteria from 53,872 oncology trials (breast, lung, and gastrointestinal cancer) indexed on ClinicalTrials.gov |
| I — Intervention | Natural language processing framework using embeddings, clustering, and large language model summarization with interactive visualization |
| C — Comparator | Manual review and interpretation of eligibility criteria (implied comparison) |
| O — Outcomes | System accuracy in categorizing criteria (94%), successful processing of all trials, cluster coherence, and visualization interface functionality |
Bottom Line
This technology development study demonstrates a promising natural language processing framework that achieved 94% accuracy in automatically categorizing clinical trial eligibility criteria from over 53,000 oncology trials. The system combines text embeddings, clustering, and large language model summarization to standardize heterogeneous eligibility text and create interactive visualizations. While validated only in oncology, the open-source framework could significantly improve patient-trial matching efficiency and reduce manual review burden. The high accuracy rate and scalable design make this a valuable tool for clinical research infrastructure, though broader validation across medical specialties and comparison with existing systems would strengthen the evidence base. For Australian healthcare, this could enhance clinical trial accessibility and support more efficient patient recruitment processes.
Key Findings
P Value: Not applicable for this study design
Effect Size: 94% accuracy (470/500 correctly categorized criteria)
Primary Outcome: System accuracy in categorizing eligibility criteria
Nnt Or Sensitivity: 94% sensitivity for correct criteria categorization
Confidence Interval: Not reported
Clinical Application
High feasibility given open-source implementation and demonstrated scalability across large datasets Highly relevant for Australian clinical trial networks, could integrate with ANZCTR database and support TGA-regulated trial recruitment processes Clinical researchers, trial coordinators, and healthcare systems involved in patient-trial matching
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eligibility criteria are essential to clinical trial design, guiding recruitment, and ensuring patient safety and scientific rigor. However, criteria are often lengthy, heterogeneous, and inconsistently formatted, which hinders large-scale interpretation and slows patient-trial matching. Manual review is time-consuming and error-prone. Advances in natural language processing and large language models (LLMs) offer opportunities to standardize and analyze eligibility text at scale. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop and evaluate a scalable system that uses LLM-enabled natural language processing and unsupervised learning to identify, normalize, categorize, and visualize clinical trial eligibility criteria, with the goal of improving patient-trial matching and revealing domain-level trends. METHODS: We designed a three-part pipeline: (1) representation of eligibility text using embeddings, followed by clustering to group semantically similar criteria; (2) dual-layer zero-shot LLM summarization for concept normalization, refinement, and deduplication of cluster exemplars; and (3) an interactive, web-based visualization interface to explore criteria distributions and trends by disease domain and over time. The pipeline was applied to 53,872 oncology trials (breast, lung, and gastrointestinal cancer) indexed on ClinicalTrials.gov. Outputs include cluster labels, normalized criterion summaries, and per-domain frequency profiles. Feasibility was assessed via successful end-to-end processing and inspection of face validity for cluster coherence and domain-specific patterns. RESULTS: The system successfully processed all 53,872 trials and generated stable clusters of inclusion and exclusion concepts. The LLM summarization layers produced concise, nonredundant labels that improved the interpretability of clustered criteria. The visualization interface enabled rapid exploration of cross-trial patterns and temporal trends within breast, lung, and gastrointestinal oncology, facilitating identification of common inclusion requirements and potential barriers to enrollment. A public, open-source demonstration instance allows for interactive exploration of these clusters and summaries. Benchmarking through human validation on a random sample of eligibility criteria found the system to be 94% (470/500) accurate, reflecting its ability to consistently categorize criteria correctly in congruence with human judgment. CONCLUSIONS: A combined embeddings-clustering-LLM pipeline can standardize heterogeneous eligibility text and surface domain-level patterns at scale. This framework provides a foundation for accelerating patient-trial matching and informing future trial design. While the current implementation was evaluated on ClinicalTrials.gov oncology trials, the approach is readily generalizable to additional diseases and alternative modeling configurations.
References
- 1.Xie, J., Parikh, J., Liu, J., Pandya, S., & Gong, G. (2026). A Natural Language Processing Framework for Structuring and Visualizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria at Scale: Protocol for a Quantitative Study. JMIR Research Protocols. https://doi.org/10.2196/86425
Related Research
JMIR formative research
Automated Machine Learning Frameworks for Radiomics: Comparative Evaluation Study
14 June 2026
Critical care (London, England)
Large language models for optimizing clinical trial recruitment in ICUs: application to ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction
13 June 2026
Purinergic signalling
Turning failure into success: how artificial intelligence can help personalize therapies and re-use patient data.
31 May 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service