Cette page a été traduite automatiquement et l'exactitude de la traduction n'est pas garantie. Veuillez vous référer au version anglaise pour un texte source.

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

13 juin 2026 mis à jour par: 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.

Aperçu de l'étude

Statut

Inscription sur invitation

Les conditions

Intervention / Traitement

Type d'étude

Interventionnel

Inscription (Estimé)

12

Phase

  • N'est pas applicable

Contacts et emplacements

Cette section fournit les coordonnées de ceux qui mènent l'étude et des informations sur le lieu où cette étude est menée.

Lieux d'étude

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

Critères de participation

Les chercheurs recherchent des personnes qui correspondent à une certaine description, appelée critères d'éligibilité. Certains exemples de ces critères sont l'état de santé général d'une personne ou des traitements antérieurs.

Critère d'éligibilité

Âges éligibles pour étudier

  • Adulte
  • Adulte plus âgé

Accepte les volontaires sains

Non

La description

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.

Plan d'étude

Cette section fournit des détails sur le plan d'étude, y compris la façon dont l'étude est conçue et ce que l'étude mesure.

Comment l'étude est-elle conçue ?

Détails de conception

  • Objectif principal: Autre
  • Répartition: Randomisé
  • Modèle interventionnel: Affectation parallèle
  • Masquage: Seul

Armes et Interventions

Groupe de participants / Bras
Intervention / Traitement
Expérimental: test arm
GAPS-Agent
Autre: 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
Comparateur actif: control arm
LLM
Autre: LLM
Open source large language model that is not specifically enhanced in medical field.

Que mesure l'étude ?

Principaux critères de jugement

Mesure des résultats
Description de la mesure
Délai
Overall plan Win Ratio
Délai: 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.

Mesures de résultats secondaires

Mesure des résultats
Description de la mesure
Délai
Inter-rater agreement
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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.

Collaborateurs et enquêteurs

C'est ici que vous trouverez les personnes et les organisations impliquées dans cette étude.

Parrainer

Peking University People's Hospital

Dates d'enregistrement des études

Ces dates suivent la progression des dossiers d'étude et des soumissions de résultats sommaires à ClinicalTrials.gov. Les dossiers d'étude et les résultats rapportés sont examinés par la Bibliothèque nationale de médecine (NLM) pour s'assurer qu'ils répondent à des normes de contrôle de qualité spécifiques avant d'être publiés sur le site Web public.

Dates principales de l'étude

Début de l'étude (Réel)

10 juin 2026

Achèvement primaire (Estimé)

21 juin 2026

Achèvement de l'étude (Estimé)

21 juin 2026

Dates d'inscription aux études

Première soumission

10 juin 2026

Première soumission répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité

13 juin 2026

Première publication (Réel)

17 juin 2026

Mises à jour des dossiers d'étude

Dernière mise à jour publiée (Réel)

17 juin 2026

Dernière mise à jour soumise répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité

13 juin 2026

Dernière vérification

1 juin 2026

Plus d'information

Termes liés à cette étude

Mots clés

Termes MeSH pertinents supplémentaires

Autres numéros d'identification d'étude

  • 2026PHB458-001

Plan pour les données individuelles des participants (IPD)

Prévoyez-vous de partager les données individuelles des participants (DPI) ?

NON

Informations sur les médicaments et les dispositifs, documents d'étude

Étudie un produit pharmaceutique réglementé par la FDA américaine

Non

Étudie un produit d'appareil réglementé par la FDA américaine

Non

Ces informations ont été extraites directement du site Web clinicaltrials.gov sans aucune modification. Si vous avez des demandes de modification, de suppression ou de mise à jour des détails de votre étude, veuillez contacter register@clinicaltrials.gov. Dès qu'un changement est mis en œuvre sur clinicaltrials.gov, il sera également mis à jour automatiquement sur notre site Web .

Essais cliniques sur Cancer du poumon (NSCLC)

Essais cliniques sur GAPS-Agent

Rechercher des essais similaires

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

CROs by country

CROs in Angola

Conditions

Maladies rares

Interventions en matière de drogue

Compléments alimentaires

Commanditaire / collaborateurs

Emplacements

S'abonner