NLP-Based Feedback to Improve Risk Comms and Informed Shared Decision Making

August 11, 2026 updated by: Timothy J. Daskivich, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Natural Language Processing-Based Feedback to Improve Physician Risk Communication and Informed Shared Decision Making in Men With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

In this pilot study, the investigators will show feasibility of the NLP-based feedback system in 20 consultations of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. The investigators will recruit from the practices of up to 10 physicians who typically see these patients. The investigators will report the top five sentences from each consultation across key content areas (cancer prognosis, life expectancy, erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and irritative urinary symptoms) to both patients and physicians within 2 weeks of the consultation.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Recruiting

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

The primary research procedures are:

  1. Audio recording and transcribing treatment counseling discussions for 20 men with newly diagnosed clinically localized prostate cancers and utilize NLP to extract key content using the system described above.
  2. Reports including the top five sentences by NLP probability for key content areas will be generated and will be provided to patients and providers within 2 weeks after each case.
  3. For patients, decisional conflict and risk perception will be assessed before and after receiving the NLP-based feedback.
  4. For physicians, the investigators will assess baseline quality of risk communication, any changes in individual physician communication over time, and accuracy of risk estimates for key content areas.
  5. Within 2 weeks of receiving the NLP-based feedback, the investigators will conduct a 30-minute semi-structured interview with patients to obtain their opinions on the utility and ideal implementation strategy for the NLP-based feedback.
  6. At the conclusion of the pilot trial, the investigators will conduct 30-minute semi-structured interview with counseling physicians to obtain their opinions on the utility and ideal implementation strategy for the NLP-based feedback.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
30

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact

The name and contact information for the person who can answer enrollment questions for a clinical study. Each location where the study is being conducted may also have a specific contact, who may be better able to answer those questions.

Study Contact Backup

Study Locations

  • United States
    • California
      • Los Angeles, California, United States, 90048
        • Recruiting
        • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Timothy Daskivich, MD
        • Contact:
        • Contact:

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Men undergoing initial treatment consultation for clinically localized prostate cancer;
  2. Men with upgraded prostate cancer on active surveillance considering conversion to definitive local therapy.
  3. Cedars-Sinai patient.
  4. Ability to read and write in English.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Under 18 years of age;
  2. Subjects with difficulty communicating or dementia;
  3. Non-English speakers, given that our NLP-based tools cannot be used with languages other than English;
  4. Men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer;
  5. Men who have already been treated for clinically localized prostate cancer

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
  • Allocation: N/A
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: NLP Intervention Experimental Arm
20 men with newly diagnosed clinically localized prostate cancers and utilize NLP to extract key content using the top five sentences by NLP probability for key content areas will be generated and will be provided to patients and providers within 2 weeks after each case.
Behavioral: NLP-based Feedback
Audio recordings will be made using either digital recorders or telehealth platform-generated transcripts. Patient reports will include only the extracted sentences related to content areas. Physician reports will note the extracted statements across each content area, the quality scores for individual statements based on the pre-specified hierarchy, the statements that achieved the highest score across each content area, and feedback on what could be improved. For patients, decisional conflict and risk perception will be assessed before and after receiving the NLP-based feedback. For physicians, the investigators will assess baseline quality of risk communication by pre-specified hierarchy, any changes in individual physician communication over time, and accuracy of risk estimates for key content areas.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in Decisional Conflict Scale Scores before and after intervention (patient-level outcome)
Time Frame: Measured directly after treatment consultation and after NLP-based feedback given to patients within 2 weeks of consultation
The investigators will employ the validated Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), to estimate uncertainty associated with treatment choice. Effect sizes of 0.3 to 0.4 are considered meaningful. Variability (standard deviation) in DCS scores before and after receiving NLP-based feedback will be assessed and used in planning a larger trial.
Measured directly after treatment consultation and after NLP-based feedback given to patients within 2 weeks of consultation
Change in risk perception before and after intervention (patient-level outcome)
Time Frame: Measured directly after treatment consultation and after NLP -based feedback given to patients within 2 weeks of consultation
The investigators will evaluate concordance of cancer risk perception with actual cancer risk at the patient level before and after the intervention. Cancer risk perception will be assessed by multiple-choice questions. Concordance of patient answers with actual cancer risk as estimated by outcomes of the SPCG-4 randomized trial comparing surgery versus watchful waiting at the patient's PCCI-predicted life expectancy will be assessed as a binary outcome. Risk perception will be assessed before and after their consultation. Variability (standard deviation) in risk perception scores before and after receiving NLP-based feedback will be assessed and used in planning a larger trial.
Measured directly after treatment consultation and after NLP -based feedback given to patients within 2 weeks of consultation
Physician attitudes regarding integration of NLP-based information (physician-level outcome)
Time Frame: Interviews will be conducted within 2 weeks of the intervention.
30-minute semi-structured interviews with counseling physicians will be conducted within 2 weeks of the intervention to obtain their opinions on the utility and ideal implementation strategy for the NLP-based feedback.
Interviews will be conducted within 2 weeks of the intervention.
Difference between reported risk of side effects and prognosis with gold standard (physician-level outcome)
Time Frame: Data will be captured during the treatment consultation-for the duration of the study up to 1 year
The difference in reported risk estimates given by physicians during the consultation as compared with the gold standards for these risks (i.e. for side effects, estimates from the CAESAR study; for cancer risk with and without treatment, risks of cancer mortality in the WW group of SPCG-4 trial at the patient's life expectancy as determined by the prostate cancer comorbidity index). Variability (standard deviation) in accuracy of estimates will be assessed and used in planning a larger trial. Accuracy of estimates for the interventional period will be compared with physician-specific historical references from a previously conducted trial using the standard of care (i.e. no NLP-based intervention).
Data will be captured during the treatment consultation-for the duration of the study up to 1 year
Quality of composite physician risk communication score in treatment consultation (physician-level outcome)
Time Frame: Data will be captured during the treatment consultation, for duration of the study up to 1 year
Quality of risk communication scores will be calculated by qualitatively analyzing treatment consultation transcripts to assess the highest quality of communication used to transmit information regarding all key tradeoffs (cancer prognosis, life expectancy, erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and irritative urinary symptoms). The quality of risk communication scale ranges from 0 to 5 for each outcome, with 0 representing the lowest score and 5 representing the highest score (Daskivich et al, J Urol 2022; Naser-Tavakolian et al, J Urol 2022). Scores for all key tradeoffs will be averaged to yield a composite quality of risk communication score. Variability (standard deviation) in quality scores will be assessed and used in planning a larger trial.
Data will be captured during the treatment consultation, for duration of the study up to 1 year
Patient attitudes regarding integration of NLP-based information
Time Frame: within 4 weeks of patients using NLP system.
30-minute semi-structured interviews with patients will be conducted at the conclusion of the study period to obtain their opinions on the utility and ideal implementation strategy for the NLP-based feedback
within 4 weeks of patients using NLP system.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Timothy Daskivich, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
November 15, 2023

Primary Completion (Estimated)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
July 15, 2027

Study Completion (Estimated)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
July 15, 2027

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
May 24, 2023

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
June 27, 2023

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
June 28, 2023

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
August 12, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
August 11, 2026

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
July 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • STUDY00002590
  • K08CA230155 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings