- ICH GCP
- US-Register für klinische Studien
- Klinische Studie NCT07718893
CITE: Clinical Inference Tethered to Evidence - a Retrieve-and-verify Layer for AI Care Plans (CITE)
16. Juli 2026 aktualisiert von: Sanjay Basu, Waymark
A Randomized Controlled Trial of CITE (Clinical Inference Tethered to Evidence), an Evidence-Grounding Retrieve-and-Verify Layer That Flags Unsupported and Inappropriate Recommendations in AI-Generated Care Plans, Versus AI With Safety Guardrails Alone and Unassisted Care, in Medicaid Primary Care
This trial evaluates CITE, a retrieve-and-verify layer that audits an AI-generated care plan against a full-text evidence corpus and flags patient-specific codifiable safety hazards to the clinician.
The co-primary outcomes are how accurately CITE flags these hazards (sensitivity and specificity versus blinded clinician adjudication) and its clinician alert burden and acceptance, compared with AI care plans using safety guardrails alone and with unassisted clinician care, in Medicaid primary care.
Studienübersicht
Status
Noch keine Rekrutierung
Bedingungen
Intervention / Behandlung
Detaillierte Beschreibung
Patients are randomized 1:1:1 to (1) unassisted clinician care; (2) AI-generated care plan with safety guardrails; (3) AI-generated care plan with safety guardrails plus CITE.
CITE audits the finalized plan against a frozen, versioned evidence corpus and returns physician-facing flags for patient-specific codifiable safety hazards (a recommended drug contraindicated by this patient's diagnosis or laboratory value; a drug-allergy conflict; a dropped high-risk medication; a guideline-indicated therapy omitted for an active diagnosis; a stated quantity refuted by the corpus), each with a verbatim quote and citation; the clinician retains decision authority.
Randomization uses a deterministic HMAC permuted-block scheme; outcome assessors are blinded to arm.
The co-primary outcomes are (1) the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of CITE against blinded clinician adjudication, and (2) clinician alert burden (flags per encounter) and acceptance, comparing the CITE arm with the guardrail arm; both are estimable at the enrolled sample size because they do not depend on a rare between-arm event.
The unresolved codifiable-hazard rate by arm is reported as a descriptive secondary: codifiable hazards are infrequent, so the trial is not powered for a between-arm efficacy contrast on hazard reduction.
A prior trial of a different mechanism (a generic deterministic rule-corpus that surfaced roughly 30 or more flags per encounter and was uninformative) was completed with null results and is registered separately; this trial evaluates a materially different, patient-specific intervention and set of outcomes.
Determined exempt by WCG IRB (low risk).
Analysis is pre-registered on OSF (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ENXCW).
Studientyp
Interventionell
Einschreibung (Geschätzt)
240
Phase
- Unzutreffend
Teilnahmekriterien
Forscher suchen nach Personen, die einer bestimmten Beschreibung entsprechen, die als Auswahlkriterien bezeichnet werden. Einige Beispiele für diese Kriterien sind der allgemeine Gesundheitszustand einer Person oder frühere Behandlungen.
Zulassungskriterien
Studienberechtigtes Alter
- Erwachsene
- Älterer Erwachsener
Akzeptiert gesunde Freiwillige
Nein
Beschreibung
INCLUSION CRITERIA:
- Age 18 years or older.
- Medicaid-enrolled and attributed to a participating Waymark primary care site.
- Primary care encounter that requires clinical reasoning (not administrative-only).
- English-language clinical documentation.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA:
- Age less than 18 years.
- Hospice or palliative-care-exclusive care plan.
- Administrative-only or pharmacy-only encounter that does not surface a clinical decision to the supervising clinician.
- Encounter where the supervising clinician is the principal investigator.
- Enrollment in a competing AI-safety study within the prior 90 days.
Studienplan
Dieser Abschnitt enthält Einzelheiten zum Studienplan, einschließlich des Studiendesigns und der Messung der Studieninhalte.
Wie ist die Studie aufgebaut?
Designdetails
- Hauptzweck: Versorgungsforschung
- Zuteilung: Zufällig
- Interventionsmodell: Parallele Zuordnung
- Maskierung: Single
Waffen und Interventionen
Teilnehmergruppe / Arm |
Intervention / Behandlung |
|---|---|
|
Kein Eingriff: Arm 1: Unassisted care
Clinician develops the care plan without AI assistance.
|
|
|
Aktiver Komparator: Arm 2: AI with safety guardrails
AI-generated care plan produced with a safety-guardrail system prompt; no CITE.
|
AI-generated care plan produced under a safety-guardrail system prompt.
|
|
Experimental: Arm 3: AI with safety guardrails plus CITE
AI-generated care plan with safety guardrails, then passed through CITE, which flags unsupported/inappropriate recommendations with evidence citations for the clinician.
|
AI-generated care plan produced under a safety-guardrail system prompt.
Reads the AI care-plan text and verifies each recommendation/claim against a full-text evidence corpus; returns physician-facing flags (commission/confabulation/unsupported/omission) with verbatim quotes and citations.
Clinician retains decision authority.
|
Was misst die Studie?
Primäre Ergebnismessungen
Ergebnis Maßnahme |
Maßnahmenbeschreibung |
Zeitfenster |
|---|---|---|
|
Diagnostic accuracy of CITE against clinician adjudication
Zeitfenster: Day 1 (index primary care encounter)
|
Sensitivity and specificity (with positive and negative predictive values) of the CITE checker for clinically consequential codifiable safety hazards, using blinded clinician adjudication of the plan as the reference standard.
Every plan contributes, so the estimate does not depend on a rare between-arm event.
Exact-binomial 95% confidence intervals; reported overall and by hazard family.
|
Day 1 (index primary care encounter)
|
|
Clinician alert burden (flags surfaced per encounter)
Zeitfenster: Day 1 (index primary care encounter)
|
Number of safety flags surfaced to the clinician per encounter in the CITE arm versus the guardrail arm, with clinician acceptance rate.
Co-primary usability outcome: a verifier that surfaces an unmanageable number of flags is not deployable regardless of sensitivity (the prior-trial mechanism surfaced a median of about 30 per encounter).
Pre-registered acceptability ceiling: median CITE flags per encounter at or below three.
|
Day 1 (index primary care encounter)
|
Sekundäre Ergebnismessungen
Ergebnis Maßnahme |
Maßnahmenbeschreibung |
Zeitfenster |
|---|---|---|
|
Clinician action on CITE flags
Zeitfenster: Day 1 (index primary care encounter)
|
Proportion of CITE flags accepted vs overridden by the clinician, by flag type (commission, confabulation, unsupported, omission).
|
Day 1 (index primary care encounter)
|
|
Unresolved codifiable safety-hazard rate by arm (descriptive)
Zeitfenster: Day 1 (index primary care encounter)
|
Proportion of patient-specific codifiable-hazard checkpoints with an unresolved hazard in the finalized plan, by arm, with the Arm 3 minus Arm 2 difference and 95% confidence interval.
Pre-specified as descriptive and hypothesis-generating: codifiable hazards are infrequent, so the trial is not powered for a between-arm efficacy contrast on this measure at the enrolled sample size.
|
Day 1 (index primary care encounter)
|
|
Correction of codifiable hazards within 30 days
Zeitfenster: Up to 30 days after the index encounter
|
Among checkpoints with a hazard in the finalized plan, the proportion acted on and corrected within 30 days (documented resolution, completed referral, or corrected order).
Proximal clinical effectiveness measure.
|
Up to 30 days after the index encounter
|
|
Completed referrals within 30 days
Zeitfenster: Up to 30 days after the index encounter
|
Proportion of initiated referrals completed within 30 days.
|
Up to 30 days after the index encounter
|
|
Clinical safety composite (exploratory)
Zeitfenster: Day 1 (index primary care encounter)
|
Four-component clinical safety composite carried from the prior trial.
Pre-specified as exploratory; underpowered at the planned sample size.
|
Day 1 (index primary care encounter)
|
|
30-day acute care utilization (exploratory)
Zeitfenster: Up to 30 days after the index encounter
|
Emergency department visits and hospitalizations within 30 days.
Exploratory.
|
Up to 30 days after the index encounter
|
Mitarbeiter und Ermittler
Hier finden Sie Personen und Organisationen, die an dieser Studie beteiligt sind.
Sponsor
Mitarbeiter
Studienaufzeichnungsdaten
Diese Daten verfolgen den Fortschritt der Übermittlung von Studienaufzeichnungen und zusammenfassenden Ergebnissen an ClinicalTrials.gov. Studienaufzeichnungen und gemeldete Ergebnisse werden von der National Library of Medicine (NLM) überprüft, um sicherzustellen, dass sie bestimmten Qualitätskontrollstandards entsprechen, bevor sie auf der öffentlichen Website veröffentlicht werden.
Haupttermine studieren
Studienbeginn (Geschätzt)
1. September 2026
Primärer Abschluss (Geschätzt)
1. Juni 2027
Studienabschluss (Geschätzt)
1. September 2027
Studienanmeldedaten
Zuerst eingereicht
13. Juli 2026
Zuerst eingereicht, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt hat
16. Juli 2026
Zuerst gepostet (Tatsächlich)
22. Juli 2026
Studienaufzeichnungsaktualisierungen
Letztes Update gepostet (Tatsächlich)
22. Juli 2026
Letztes eingereichtes Update, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt
16. Juli 2026
Zuletzt verifiziert
1. Juli 2026
Mehr Informationen
Begriffe im Zusammenhang mit dieser Studie
Andere Studien-ID-Nummern
- CITE-2026-02
Arzneimittel- und Geräteinformationen, Studienunterlagen
Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Arzneimittelprodukt
Nein
Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Geräteprodukt
Nein
Produkt, das in den USA hergestellt und aus den USA exportiert wird
Nein
Diese Informationen wurden ohne Änderungen direkt von der Website clinicaltrials.gov abgerufen. Wenn Sie Ihre Studiendaten ändern, entfernen oder aktualisieren möchten, wenden Sie sich bitte an register@clinicaltrials.gov. Sobald eine Änderung auf clinicaltrials.gov implementiert wird, wird diese automatisch auch auf unserer Website aktualisiert .
Klinische Studien zur Patientensicherheit
-
Boston Children's HospitalAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); Pediatric Research in Inpatient...RekrutierungQualitätsverbesserung | Patientensicherheit | Von der Familie gemeldete Fehler und unerwünschte Ereignisse | Gesundheitliche disparitäten | Family Safety Reporting | Freiwillige Meldung von VorfällenVereinigte Staaten
-
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de NiceAbgeschlossenVorherrschender Alzheimer-Patient | Demenzieller Alzheimer-Patient | ZeugeFrankreich
-
Peking Union Medical College HospitalAbgeschlossenPatient nach Herzklappenoperation | Patient mit verlängerter mechanischer BeatmungChina
-
University of Dublin, Trinity CollegeDublin Dental University HospitalRekrutierungKonformität, PatientIrland
-
Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli...AbgeschlossenHerzchirurgischer PatientItalien
-
University of Mississippi Medical CenterNational Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)AbgeschlossenAdhärenz, PatientVereinigte Staaten
-
Aga Khan University Hospital, PakistanAbgeschlossen
-
Brigham and Women's HospitalMassachusetts General Hospital; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; North Shore Medical...AbgeschlossenPatient fälltVereinigte Staaten
-
Johns Hopkins UniversityGilead SciencesBeendetAdhärenz, PatientVereinigte Staaten
-
National Research Center for Preventive MedicineAbgeschlossenAdhärenz, PatientRussische Föderation