- ICH GCP
- Registro de ensayos clínicos de EE. UU.
- Ensayo clínico NCT07827924
Designing a Large Language Model Architecture for Shared Decision Making and Informed Intentions (DEONCAI3-1)
DEONCAi 3-1: Can Large Language Models Support Shared Decision-Making and Informed Intentions in the Field: An Online Experiment Comparing Them to a Standard Model and to an Evidence-Based Decision Aid
Descripción general del estudio
Estado
Condiciones
Intervención / Tratamiento
Descripción detallada
Background & Current State of Research Shared Decision-Making is widely recognized as the gold standard of patient-centered care. However, its successful implementation in clinical practice is frequently hindered by systemic time and budget constraints. Consequently, patients are increasingly turning to Large Language Models to independently access health information and navigate their medical options.
The Problem: Limitations of Standard LLMs Recent studies indicate that using standard LLMs can digitally reproduce existing health inequalities and participation gaps. These models struggle to adapt to different reading levels without a significant loss in quality. While highly developed prompting techniques can enhance clinical accuracy, the results remain highly variable depending on the specific model and technique used.
A central deficit becomes apparent in multi-turn interactions, which are essential for a natural SDM workflow. In these prolonged conversations, standard LLMs tend to exhibit "context rot," leading to a sharp decline in accuracy as the dialogue progresses. This issue is further exacerbated by model sycophancy (an uncritical tendency to agree with the user) and completion eagerness (a tendency to prematurely conclude the conversation). Because current LLMs often fail to meet evidence-based reporting standards and lack systematic validation of user comprehension, the burden of fact-checking remains entirely on the user. This dynamic significantly disadvantages vulnerable groups, particularly those with lower health literacy.
Project Objectives and Research Questions
This project proposes a technical and clinical solution to these challenges through the following core research questions:
Technical-Conceptual Framework: How can we develop a transparent and replicable workflow that formalizes the SDM process through an agentic state-machine, thereby eliminating structural deficits of LLMs (e.g., context rot and sycophancy) in prolonged interactions?
Clinical Evaluation (Primary Objective): Does this newly developed agentic LLM architecture achieve higher scores in participatory conversation management and demonstrate a significantly greater objective increase in informed decision-making among users during multi-turn interactions, compared to a standard baseline LLM?
Health Equity (Secondary Objective): To what extent can this agentic LLM architecture guarantee effective participatory conversation management for vulnerable patient groups with low health literacy?
Tipo de estudio
Inscripción (Estimado)
Fase
- No aplica
Contactos y Ubicaciones
Estudio Contacto
- Nombre: Felix G Rebitschek, PhD
- Número de teléfono: +493319772162
- Correo electrónico: felix.rebitschek@fgw-brandenburg.de
Copia de seguridad de contactos de estudio
- Nombre: Martin Lipsdorf
- Correo electrónico: martin.lipsdorf@mhb-fontane.de
Criterios de participación
Criterio de elegibilidad
Edades elegibles para estudiar
- Adulto
- Adulto Mayor
Acepta Voluntarios Saludables
Descripción
Inclusion Criteria:
- Biological sex: Female.
- Age: 40 to 70 years old.
- Country of residence: United States (US) or United Kingdom (UK).
- Language: Native English speaker (English as first language).
- Registered and verified user on the academic research platform Prolific.
- Able to read, understand, and provide informed consent digitally.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Individuals who do not meet the automated pre-screening criteria on the Prolific platform.
- Inability to use or access a computer, smartphone, or internet browser required to complete the digital study.
Note: Quotas will be enforced during recruitment to ensure a 50/50 stratified split between participants with and without university entrance qualifications to guarantee variance in educational backgrounds. Once a quota is filled, further participants matching that educational profile will be excluded.
-
Plan de estudios
¿Cómo está diseñado el estudio?
Detalles de diseño
- Propósito principal: Investigación de servicios de salud
- Asignación: Aleatorizado
- Modelo Intervencionista: Asignación paralela
- Enmascaramiento: Ninguno (etiqueta abierta)
Armas e Intervenciones
Grupo de participantes/brazo |
Intervención / Tratamiento |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Shared Decision Making Chatbot
Participants will engage in a multi-turn, AI-assisted consultation about mammography screening.
They will interact with a newly developed agentic Large Language Model architecture that uses an integrated state-machine designed to actively guide the Shared Decision-Making process, adapt to the user's reading level, and prevent context loss.
|
An interactive AI chatbot built with an agentic state-machine architecture designed to systematically guide users through the Shared Decision-Making process regarding mammography screening, with built-in ethical guardrails to prevent hallucination and sycophancy.
|
|
Comparador activo: Standard Chatbot
Participants will engage in a conversation about mammography screening using a standard, usual care Large Language Model (Mistral Large).
This model represents the current consumer standard for AI health queries and lacks the specialized agentic state-machine and SDM workflow guidance.
|
An unmodified, standard generative Large Language Model chatbot acting as a baseline control, used by participants to discuss mammography screening.
|
|
Comparador activo: Information brochure
Participants will receive and read the standard informational patient brochure on mammography screening published by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG).
This represents the current standard of care for patient information.
|
The standard digital informational brochure on mammography screening provided by the german Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), used as a usual care baseline for patient education.
|
¿Qué mide el estudio?
Medidas de resultado primarias
Medida de resultado |
Medida Descripción |
Periodo de tiempo |
|---|---|---|
|
Patient-Reported Quality of Shared Decision-Making
Periodo de tiempo: Day 1
|
Assessed using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9).
This validated instrument measures the patient's perceived involvement in the medical decision-making process.
The questionnaire consists of 9 items, each rated on a 6-point scale ranging from 0 ("completely disagree") to 5 ("completely agree").
The raw scores are summed and multiplied by 20/9 to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 100.
Higher scores indicate a higher perceived quality and greater patient involvement in shared decision-making.
|
Day 1
|
Medidas de resultado secundarias
Medida de resultado |
Medida Descripción |
Periodo de tiempo |
|---|---|---|
|
Multidimensional Informed Decision-Making
Periodo de tiempo: Day 1
|
Based on Marteau's conceptualization of informed decision-making.
An informed decision is achieved when a participant has sufficient objective knowledge about mammography screening and their behavioral intention (to screen or not to screen) is congruent with their personal attitudes toward the screening.
This is calculated as a composite measure integrating an objective knowledge test, an attitude assessment, and a screening intention question.
Higher objective knowledge scores and higher attitude-intention congruence indicate a better-informed decision.
|
Day 1
|
|
Subjective Decisional Conflict
Periodo de tiempo: Day 1
|
Assessed using a standardized Decisional Conflict Scale.
This measures the participant's perceived uncertainty in choosing a screening option, their clarity of personal values, and their feeling of being supported in decision-making.
Scores are transformed to a 0 to 100 scale.
Lower scores indicate less decisional conflict and greater decision certainty.
|
Day 1
|
|
Medical Accuracy and Safety of Generated Information
Periodo de tiempo: Day 1
|
A quantitative and qualitative assessment of the medical accuracy of the AI-generated texts.
This is operationalized by counting the frequency (number of occurrences) and categorizing the severity of deviations from established medical evidence (i.e., misinformation or "hallucinations").
These deviations are identified via an integrated ethics module and/or expert review.
Lower frequencies and lower severity ratings indicate higher medical accuracy.
|
Day 1
|
Colaboradores e Investigadores
Patrocinador
Investigadores
- Investigador principal: Felix G Rebitschek, PhD, Harding Center for Risk Literacy
Publicaciones y enlaces útiles
Publicaciones Generales
- Rebitschek FG, Carella A, Kohlrausch-Pazin S, Zitzmann M, Steckelberg A, Wilhelm C. Evaluating evidence-based health information from generative AI using a cross-sectional study with laypeople seeking screening information. NPJ Digit Med. 2025 Jun 9;8(1):343. doi: 10.1038/s41746-025-01752-6.
- Mendel T, Singh N, Mann DM, Wiesenfeld B, Nov O. Laypeople's Use of and Attitudes Toward Large Language Models and Search Engines for Health Queries: Survey Study. J Med Internet Res. 2025 Feb 13;27:e64290. doi: 10.2196/64290.
- Laban, P., Hayashi, H., Zhou, Y., & Neville, J. (2025). Llms get lost in multi-turn conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06120.
- Krenn C, Loder C, Berger N, Jeitler K, Semlitsch T, Siebenhofer A, Wilfling D. Automated Approaches of Text Simplification of Patient Education Materials: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2026 May 7;28:e88365. doi: 10.2196/88365.
- Keij SM, Branda ME, Montori VM, Brito JP, Kunneman M, Pieterse AH. Patient Characteristics and the Extent to Which Clinicians Involve Patients in Decision Making: Secondary Analyses of Pooled Data. Med Decis Making. 2024 Apr;44(3):346-356. doi: 10.1177/0272989X241231721. Epub 2024 Mar 4.
Fechas de registro del estudio
Fechas importantes del estudio
Inicio del estudio (Estimado)
Finalización primaria (Estimado)
Finalización del estudio (Estimado)
Fechas de registro del estudio
Enviado por primera vez
Primero enviado que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad
Publicado por primera vez (Actual)
Actualizaciones de registros de estudio
Última actualización publicada (Actual)
Última actualización enviada que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad
Última verificación
Más información
Términos relacionados con este estudio
Palabras clave
Términos MeSH relevantes adicionales
Otros números de identificación del estudio
- DEONCAI3-1
Plan de datos de participantes individuales (IPD)
¿Planea compartir datos de participantes individuales (IPD)?
Descripción del plan IPD
Marco de tiempo para compartir IPD
Criterios de acceso compartido de IPD
Información sobre medicamentos y dispositivos, documentos del estudio
Estudia un producto farmacéutico regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.
Estudia un producto de dispositivo regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.
Esta información se obtuvo directamente del sitio web clinicaltrials.gov sin cambios. Si tiene alguna solicitud para cambiar, eliminar o actualizar los detalles de su estudio, comuníquese con register@clinicaltrials.gov. Tan pronto como se implemente un cambio en clinicaltrials.gov, también se actualizará automáticamente en nuestro sitio web. .