Esta página se tradujo automáticamente y no se garantiza la precisión de la traducción. por favor refiérase a versión inglesa para un texto fuente.

Massive Online Open Validation and Evaluation of Large Language Models for Resource Constrained Settings - a Study of Contextual Awareness, Safety, and Accuracy (SilentMOOVE)

29 de octubre de 2026 actualizado por: Rita Szekely, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

Healthcare settings in low and middle income countries, clinicians are frequently required to manage a wide range of acute conditions under the constraints of time pressure, limited diagnostic resources, and variable availability of up-to-date clinical guidelines. Large language models (LLMs), which can synthesize and generate medical information in a natural language, have been proposed as potential clinical decision support tools. Most evaluations of LLMs in medicine have relied on standardized benchmark examinations or hypothetical case vignettes, often derived from high-income country contexts. MOOVE (Massive online open validation and evaluation) framework was developed to address the need for rigorous and context-sensitive evaluation of LLMs through a staged approach.

Study is a non-interventional, prospective study designed to test LLMs safely in real clinical settings, evaluate their performance against human care, and explore how feasible their future implementation in healthcare might be.

Descripción general del estudio

Estado

Reclutamiento

Condiciones

Intervención / Tratamiento

Descripción detallada

SilentMOOVE (Silent massive online open validation and evaluation) phase of the MOOVE project, which represents the intermediate step between previous hypothetical testing study and future interventional trial. In silentMOOVE, patients are prospectively recruited during routine clinical care in participating outpatient health facilities. Clinical and demographic data collected during consultations are used to prompt LLMs retrospectively without influencing patient care. The routine diagnosis and care plan of the treating clinicians (human care plan) are also captured. LLM outputs are subsequently evaluated by a panel of independent clinical experts against the human care plan as a comparator. Patient clinical outcomes are collected on 7 and 28 days after enrolment to establish a baseline and to be used in the evaluation of LLMs.

The rationale for this study is to generate robust, prospective evidence on the safety and performance of LLMs in real-world clinical contexts, while minimizing risk to participants by fully separating model evaluation from clinical decision-making.

Study also provides the opportunity to assess the usability and gather early insights on implementation readiness of the LLM prompting interface. For this reason, besides evaluating the performance and safety of various LLMs, this study includes an implementation feasibility component. These activities are needed to better understand the context and any amelioration needed before future implementation in healthcare settings. Learnings from the implementation feasibility research will be shared among countries, especially applicable within a given use case. Implementation feasibility research will be grounded in artificial intelligence in healthcare implementation frameworks and other Implementation science frameworks Primary objectives

  1. To evaluate the overall performance profile of LLMs on real-world clinical scenarios using the human care plan as a comparator
  2. To assess whether each LLM being evaluated is not inferior to the human comparator with respect to safety on real-world clinical scenarios, based on structured retrospective assessment of model- and human-generated care plans.

Implementation feasibility research objectives

  1. Assess clinician experience with the LLM prompting interface: ease of use, time burden, and alignment with clinical workflow.
  2. Gather clinician impressions of LLM output disclosed and reviewed post-consultation: clarity, relevance, perceived safety, alignment with local clinical guidelines, and trust in LLM outputs.
  3. Facilitators and Barriers to Future Implementation: Identify site-level infrastructure, staff capacity, and organizational readiness factors that may support or hinder future implementation of LLM feedback in real-time

Tipo de estudio

De observación

Inscripción (Estimado)

3000

Contactos y Ubicaciones

Esta sección proporciona los datos de contacto de quienes realizan el estudio e información sobre dónde se lleva a cabo este estudio.

Estudio Contacto

Copia de seguridad de contactos de estudio

Ubicaciones de estudio

    • Nairobi County
      • Nairobi, Nairobi County, Kenia, 19676
        • Aún no reclutando
        • University of Nairobi College of health sciences
        • Contacto:
        • Investigador principal:
          • Paul Macharia
    • Blantyre
      • Blantyre, Blantyre, Malaui, 303
        • Reclutamiento
        • Malawi University of Business and Applied Sciences (MUBAS)
        • Contacto:
        • Investigador principal:
          • Chiyembekezo Kachimanga
    • Dar es Salaam Region
      • Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam Region, Tanzania
        • Aún no reclutando
        • Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS)
        • Contacto:
        • Investigador principal:
          • Hendry R Sawe
    • Dodoma
      • Dodoma, Dodoma, Tanzania
        • Reclutamiento
        • Ifakara Health Institute (IHI)
        • Contacto:
          • Grace Mhalu
          • Número de teléfono: +255655888891
          • Correo electrónico: gmhalu@ihi.or.tz
        • Investigador principal:
          • Grace Mhalu

Criterios de participación

Los investigadores buscan personas que se ajusten a una determinada descripción, denominada criterio de elegibilidad. Algunos ejemplos de estos criterios son el estado de salud general de una persona o tratamientos previos.

Criterio de elegibilidad

Edades elegibles para estudiar

No mayor que 1 día (Niño)

Acepta Voluntarios Saludables

No

Géneros elegibles para el estudio

Todos

Método de muestreo

Muestra no probabilística

Población de estudio

The study population consists of patients of any age presenting to participating health facilities for a distinct care-seeking episode related to a clinical condition within the defined use case (e.g. primary care, emergency care).

Both adult and pediatric patients are eligible, reflecting the real-world case mix of the participating facilities.

Descripción

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Presentation at a participating facility for a distinct care seeking episode related to a clinical condition.
  • Use case specific inclusion criteria
  • Willing and able to provide written informed consent.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Prolonged care-seeking episode.
  • Previously enrolled in the same study.
  • Use case specific exclusion criteria
  • Immediate life-threatening condition requiring emergency intervention precluding study procedures.

Plan de estudios

Esta sección proporciona detalles del plan de estudio, incluido cómo está diseñado el estudio y qué mide el estudio.

¿Cómo está diseñado el estudio?

Detalles de diseño

  • Modelos observacionales: COHORT
  • Perspectivas temporales: PROSPECTIVE

Cohortes e Intervenciones

Grupo / Cohorte
Intervención / Tratamiento
Non interventional study

Non interventional study

Non interventional study

¿Qué mide el estudio?

Medidas de resultado primarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
Performance Scores
Periodo de tiempo: Day 0

Scoring is between -2 to +2 where '-2' means minimum, and '-2' means maximum. Score to be >0. Higher score means better outcome.

Day 0
Safety performance threshold achievement
Periodo de tiempo: 'Day 7' and 'Day 28'

The mean safety score (minimum is -2 and maximum is +2) is formally compared between each LLM and the human comparator to assess non-inferiority within a UCA (use case appendix) dependent pre-specified margin.

'Day 7' and 'Day 28'

Medidas de resultado secundarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
Implementation Feasibility Research
Periodo de tiempo: week 4 until study completion

Usability: Quantitative scoring rubric for clinicians; semi-structured interviews with clinicians; evaluation methods will be used

week 4 until study completion
Implementation Feasibility Research
Periodo de tiempo: week 4 until study completion

Workflow integration feasibility: This will be evaluated using semi structured interviews and questionnaires

week 4 until study completion
Implementation Feasibility Research
Periodo de tiempo: week 4 until study completion

Acceptability and perceived trust: This will be evaluated with Quantitative scoring rubric for clinicians; semi-structured interviews with clinicians

week 4 until study completion
Implementation Feasibility Research
Periodo de tiempo: week 4 until study completion

Implementation facilitators and barriers: This will be evaluated using semi-structured interviews and questionnaires

week 4 until study completion

Colaboradores e Investigadores

Aquí es donde encontrará personas y organizaciones involucradas en este estudio.

Publicaciones y enlaces útiles

La persona responsable de ingresar información sobre el estudio proporciona voluntariamente estas publicaciones. Estos pueden ser sobre cualquier cosa relacionada con el estudio.

Publicaciones Generales

  • 1. Arora RK, Wei J, Hicks RS, Bowman P, et al. HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Health. Preprint [Under Review]. 2025. 2. Burnell R, Schellaert W, Burden J, Ullman TD, Martinez-Plumed F, Tenenbaum JB, et al. Rethink reporting of evaluation results in AI. Science. 2023;380: 136-138. doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.ADF6369. 3. Hager P, Jungmann F, Holland R, Bhagat K, Hubrecht I, Knauer M, et al. Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making. Nature Medicine 2024 30:9. 2024;30: 2613-2622. doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03097-1. 4. Singhal, K., Azizi, S., Tu, T., Mahdavi, S. S., Wei, J., Chung, H. W., et al. (2023). Large language models encode clinical knowledge. Nature, 620(7972), 172-180. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06291-2 5. WHO. Towards the Development of guidance on ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health. 2019. 6. Azad TD, Krumholz HM, Saria S. Principles to guide clinical AI readiness and move from benchmarks to real-world evaluation. Nature Medicine. 2026;32:802-804. doi:10.1038/s41591-025-04198-1 7. Declaration of Helsinki https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects 8. European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L119, pp.1-88. 9. International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), 2016. Integrated Addendum to ICH E6(R1): Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2). Step 4, 9 November 2016. 10. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR Part 11-Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21, Part 11. Revised 2024.

Fechas de registro del estudio

Estas fechas rastrean el progreso del registro del estudio y los envíos de resultados resumidos a ClinicalTrials.gov. Los registros del estudio y los resultados informados son revisados ​​por la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (NLM) para asegurarse de que cumplan con los estándares de control de calidad específicos antes de publicarlos en el sitio web público.

Fechas importantes del estudio

Inicio del estudio (Actual)

31 de agosto de 2026

Finalización primaria (Estimado)

31 de diciembre de 2026

Finalización del estudio (Estimado)

31 de diciembre de 2026

Fechas de registro del estudio

Enviado por primera vez

9 de septiembre de 2026

Primero enviado que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

29 de octubre de 2026

Publicado por primera vez (Actual)

3 de noviembre de 2026

Actualizaciones de registros de estudio

Última actualización publicada (Actual)

3 de noviembre de 2026

Última actualización enviada que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

29 de octubre de 2026

Última verificación

1 de octubre de 2026

Más información

Términos relacionados con este estudio

Palabras clave

Otros números de identificación del estudio

  • LiGHT-26-02
  • INV-076674 (Otro número de subvención/financiamiento: BILL and Melinda gates foundation)

Plan de datos de participantes individuales (IPD)

¿Planea compartir datos de participantes individuales (IPD)?

SÍ

Descripción del plan IPD

We will share IPD within 12 months of study completion.

Marco de tiempo para compartir IPD

IPD information will be shared within 12 months of study completion.

Criterios de acceso compartido de IPD

Will be confirmed within 12 months of study completion

Tipo de información de apoyo para compartir IPD

  • PROTOCOLO DE ESTUDIO

Información sobre medicamentos y dispositivos, documentos del estudio

Estudia un producto farmacéutico regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Estudia un producto de dispositivo regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

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. .

Suscribir