Tato stránka byla automaticky přeložena a přesnost překladu není zaručena. Podívejte se prosím na anglická verze pro zdrojový text.

Preliminary Evaluation of a Large Language Model-Based Tool for Complex Surgical Decision Support in Lung Cancer

13. června 2026 aktualizováno: XiuYuan Chen, Peking University People's Hospital
This study is an exploratory effect-size estimation study, with the following specific objectives: ① to estimate the point estimate and 95% confidence interval of the Win Ratio for the experimental group (GAPS-Agent) versus the control group (large language model) in blinded pairwise preference judgments by thoracic surgery expert adjudicators, to serve as a sample size planning parameter for subsequent multicenter confirmatory clinical trials; ② to preliminarily evaluate the value of GAPS-Agent within clinical workflows.The hypothesis of this study is as follows: compared with a general-purpose large language model without medical enhancement (control group), a structured agentic workflow optimized on the basis of the GAPS evaluation framework (GAPS-Agent, experimental group) can help junior resident physicians generate clinical decision plans for complex lung cancer cases that are more strongly preferred by senior thoracic surgery expert adjudicators.

Přehled studie

Postavení

Zápis na pozvánku

Podmínky

Intervence / Léčba

Typ studie

Intervenční

Zápis (Odhadovaný)

12

Fáze

  • Nelze použít

Kontakty a umístění

Tato část poskytuje kontaktní údaje pro ty, kteří studii provádějí, a informace o tom, kde se tato studie provádí.

Studijní místa

  • Čína
    • Beijing Municipality
      • Beijing, Beijing Municipality, Čína, 100044
        • Peking University People's Hospital

Kritéria účasti

Výzkumníci hledají lidi, kteří odpovídají určitému popisu, kterému se říká kritéria způsobilosti. Některé příklady těchto kritérií jsou celkový zdravotní stav osoby nebo předchozí léčba.

Kritéria způsobilosti

Věk způsobilý ke studiu

  • Dospělý
  • Starší dospělý

Přijímá zdravé dobrovolníky

Ne

Popis

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Resident Physician Subjects:

    1. Holds a valid and legally effective Physician Practice License of the People's Republic of China;
    2. Currently holds the rank of resident physician in a thoracic surgery department at a tertiary Class A (3A) hospital;
    3. Agrees to complete all assessment tasks of the main study phase in accordance with the study protocol;
    4. Can guarantee the time and effort required to complete all assessment tasks of the main study.

  2. Study Cases:

    1. The case was discussed at the Thoracic Oncology Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) conference of Peking University People's Hospital between January 2025 and May 2026;
    2. The current version of the NCCN guidelines does not provide an explicit recommendation covering the management of the case;
    3. Does not overlap with the GAPS evaluation set;
    4. The case is presented in pure text in a structured format, with all direct and indirect identifiers removed and complete de-identification performed prior to inclusion;
    5. From the pool of eligible cases, 12 cases will be randomly drawn using Python (numpy.random, with a fixed and archived seed) to serve as the main study cases. The cases will cover 6 themes (chest mass of undetermined diagnosis, early-stage lung cancer, locally advanced lung cancer, oligometastatic/oligoprogressive disease, special intraoperative situations, and tumor recurrence), with 2 cases per theme.

  3. Adjudication Expert Panel:

    1. Holds a valid and legally effective Physician Practice License of the People's Republic of China;
    2. Currently holds the rank of attending physician or above in a thoracic surgery department at a tertiary Class A hospital;
    3. Chairs or regularly participates in lung cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) work in their department.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Resident Physician Subjects:

    1. Has previously participated in the construction of the GAPS evaluation set or the development of GAPS-Agent;
    2. Unable to complete the tasks of the study phase.

  2. Study Cases:

    1. Key case information is missing, such as text-form data on pathology (including IHC/NGS), imaging, laboratory tests, prior medical history, comorbidities, or PS score;
    2. Decision-making for the case is strictly dependent on non-text information.

  3. Adjudication Expert Panel:

    1. Participated in the construction of the GAPS evaluation set, the content validity verification, or the development of GAPS-Agent for this study;
    2. Has a direct conflict of interest with any specific product among the two-arm tools of this study.

Studijní plán

Tato část poskytuje podrobnosti o studijním plánu, včetně toho, jak je studie navržena a co studie měří.

Jak je studie koncipována?

Detaily designu

  • Primární účel: Jiný
  • Přidělení: Randomizované
  • Intervenční model: Paralelní přiřazení
  • Maskování: Singl

Zbraně a zásahy

Skupina účastníků / Arm
Intervence / Léčba
Experimentální: test arm
GAPS-Agent
Jiný: GAPS-Agent
The research group has previously developed the GAPS evaluation framework for complex clinical decision-making in lung cancer. In this framework, G (Grounding) characterizes the cognitive depth of decision-making (ranging from knowledge retrieval to decisions that go beyond clinical guidelines), A (Authority) corresponds to the grading of evidence strength, P (Perturbation) describes the identification and management of real-world clinical confounding factors, and S (Strength) corresponds to the calibration of recommendation strength. Within this framework, the research group has completed the construction of a 100-item complex lung cancer decision-making evaluation set along with its corresponding rubrics, and has invited multiple thoracic oncology experts to complete content validity validation. Based on this, the research group developed GAPS-Agent, which uses an open-source large language model as its foundation and integrates functional modules such as guideline and evidence retri
Aktivní komparátor: control arm
LLM
Jiný: LLM
Open source large language model that is not specifically enhanced in medical field.

Co je měření studie?

Primární výstupní opatření

Měření výsledku
Popis opatření
Časové okno
Overall plan Win Ratio
Časové okno: Measured at the time when experts completed their preference judgements. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the preference judgements.
A total of 10 blinded expert judges made Win/Tie/Loss ternary preference judgments on 192 paired scheme comparisons in terms of overall scheme quality. The win ratio was calculated as Wins ÷ Losses, and the 95% confidence interval was estimated using a two-level (physician × case) cluster bootstrap resampling method (B = 10,000, quantile method on the log scale).
Measured at the time when experts completed their preference judgements. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the preference judgements.

Sekundární výstupní opatření

Měření výsledku
Popis opatření
Časové okno
Inter-rater agreement
Časové okno: Measured at the time when experts completed their preference judgements. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the preference judgements.
For the ternary preference judgment results of 10 expert judges across 192 paired comparisons and 6 evaluation domains, Fleiss' kappa was used to assess inter-rater agreement. The kappa value and its 95% confidence interval are reported for each evaluation domain.
Measured at the time when experts completed their preference judgements. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the preference judgements.
Redundancy Win Ratio
Časové okno: Measured at the time when experts completed their preference judgements. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the preference judgements.
A total of 10 blinded expert judges made Win/Tie/Loss ternary preference judgments on 192 paired scheme comparisons in terms of overall scheme quality. The win ratio was calculated as Wins ÷ Losses, and the 95% confidence interval was estimated using a two-level (physician × case) cluster bootstrap resampling method (B = 10,000, quantile method on the log scale).
Measured at the time when experts completed their preference judgements. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the preference judgements.
Evidence-based medicine adherence Win Ratio
Časové okno: Measured at the time when experts completed their preference judgements. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the preference judgements.
A total of 10 blinded expert judges made Win/Tie/Loss ternary preference judgments on 192 paired scheme comparisons in terms of overall scheme quality. The win ratio was calculated as Wins ÷ Losses, and the 95% confidence interval was estimated using a two-level (physician × case) cluster bootstrap resampling method (B = 10,000, quantile method on the log scale).
Measured at the time when experts completed their preference judgements. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the preference judgements.
Actionability Win Ratio
Časové okno: Measured at the time when experts completed their preference judgements. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the preference judgements.
A total of 10 blinded expert judges made Win/Tie/Loss ternary preference judgments on 192 paired scheme comparisons in terms of overall scheme quality. The win ratio was calculated as Wins ÷ Losses, and the 95% confidence interval was estimated using a two-level (physician × case) cluster bootstrap resampling method (B = 10,000, quantile method on the log scale).
Measured at the time when experts completed their preference judgements. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the preference judgements.
Completeness Win Ratio
Časové okno: Measured at the time when experts completed their preference judgements. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the preference judgements.
A total of 10 blinded expert judges made Win/Tie/Loss ternary preference judgments on 192 paired scheme comparisons in terms of overall scheme quality. The win ratio was calculated as Wins ÷ Losses, and the 95% confidence interval was estimated using a two-level (physician × case) cluster bootstrap resampling method (B = 10,000, quantile method on the log scale).
Measured at the time when experts completed their preference judgements. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the preference judgements.
Safety Win Ratio
Časové okno: Measured at the time when experts completed their preference judgements. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the preference judgements.
A total of 10 blinded expert judges made Win/Tie/Loss ternary preference judgments on 192 paired scheme comparisons in terms of overall scheme quality. The win ratio was calculated as Wins ÷ Losses, and the 95% confidence interval was estimated using a two-level (physician × case) cluster bootstrap resampling method (B = 10,000, quantile method on the log scale).
Measured at the time when experts completed their preference judgements. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the preference judgements.
GAPS automated rubric score
Časové okno: Generated up to 3 weeks after residents finished their plan generation.
A third-party large language model, independent of the two study arms' base models, served as the judge model and automatically scored all 96 plans according to the GAPS rubric.
Generated up to 3 weeks after residents finished their plan generation.
Subject physician's self-confidence score
Časové okno: Completed at the time when residents submitted their plans. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the submission.
After submitting each case plan, the participating physicians self-rated their confidence in their own plan using a 1-5 point Likert scale.
Completed at the time when residents submitted their plans. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the submission.
Tool satisfaction score
Časové okno: Completed at the time when residents submitted their plans. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the submission.
After submitting each case plan, the participating physicians rated their satisfaction with the tool using a 1-5 point Likert scale.
Completed at the time when residents submitted their plans. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the submission.
Tool trustworthiness score
Časové okno: Completed at the time when residents submitted their plans. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the submission.
After submitting each case plan, the participating physicians rated the tool's credibility using a 1-5 point Likert scale.
Completed at the time when residents submitted their plans. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the submission.
Decision-making time
Časové okno: Completed at the time when residents submitted their plans. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the submission.
The time taken (in minutes) by each participating physician to complete the production of each case plan was automatically recorded by the evaluation platform. Differences between groups were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model.
Completed at the time when residents submitted their plans. Calculated up to 3 weeks after the submission.

Spolupracovníci a vyšetřovatelé

Zde najdete lidi a organizace zapojené do této studie.

Sponzor

Peking University People's Hospital

Termíny studijních záznamů

Tato data sledují průběh záznamů studie a předkládání souhrnných výsledků na ClinicalTrials.gov. Záznamy ze studií a hlášené výsledky jsou před zveřejněním na veřejné webové stránce přezkoumány Národní lékařskou knihovnou (NLM), aby se ujistily, že splňují specifické standardy kontroly kvality.

Hlavní termíny studia

Začátek studia (Aktuální)

10. června 2026

Primární dokončení (Odhadovaný)

21. června 2026

Dokončení studie (Odhadovaný)

21. června 2026

Termíny zápisu do studia

První předloženo

10. června 2026

První předloženo, které splnilo kritéria kontroly kvality

13. června 2026

První zveřejněno (Aktuální)

17. června 2026

Aktualizace studijních záznamů

Poslední zveřejněná aktualizace (Aktuální)

17. června 2026

Odeslaná poslední aktualizace, která splnila kritéria kontroly kvality

13. června 2026

Naposledy ověřeno

1. června 2026

Více informací

Termíny související s touto studií

Klíčová slova

Další relevantní podmínky MeSH

Další identifikační čísla studie

  • 2026PHB458-001

Plán pro data jednotlivých účastníků (IPD)

Plánujete sdílet data jednotlivých účastníků (IPD)?

NE

Informace o lécích a zařízeních, studijní dokumenty

Studuje lékový produkt regulovaný americkým FDA

Ne

Studuje produkt zařízení regulovaný americkým úřadem FDA

Ne

Tyto informace byly beze změn načteny přímo z webu clinicaltrials.gov. Máte-li jakékoli požadavky na změnu, odstranění nebo aktualizaci podrobností studie, kontaktujte prosím register@clinicaltrials.gov. Jakmile bude změna implementována na clinicaltrials.gov, bude automaticky aktualizována i na našem webu .

Klinické studie na Rakovina plic (NSCLC)

Klinické studie na GAPS-Agent

Prohledejte podobné pokusy

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

CROs by country

CROs in Argentina

Podmínky

Vzácné nemoci

Drogové intervence

Doplňky stravy

Sponzor / Spolupracovníci

Místa

Předplatit