Massive Online Open Validation and Evaluation of Large Language Models for Resource Constrained Settings - a Study of Contextual Awareness, Safety, and Accuracy (SilentMOOVE)
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.
Aperçu de l'étude
Statut
Les conditions
Intervention / Traitement
Description détaillée
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
- To evaluate the overall performance profile of LLMs on real-world clinical scenarios using the human care plan as a comparator
- 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
- Assess clinician experience with the LLM prompting interface: ease of use, time burden, and alignment with clinical workflow.
- 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.
- 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
Type d'étude
Inscription (Estimé)
Contacts et emplacements
Coordonnées de l'étude
- Nom: Mary-Anne Hartley
- Numéro de téléphone: +41216930828
- E-mail: mary-anne.hartley@epfl.ch
Sauvegarde des contacts de l'étude
- Nom: Kristina Keitel
- Numéro de téléphone: +41216932039
- E-mail: Kristina.keitel@epfl.ch
Lieux d'étude
-
-
Nairobi County
-
Nairobi, Nairobi County, Kenya, 19676
- Pas encore de recrutement
- University of Nairobi College of health sciences
-
Contact:
- Paul Macharia
- E-mail: pmachariah@gmail.com
-
Chercheur principal:
- Paul Macharia
-
-
-
-
Blantyre
-
Blantyre, Blantyre, Malawi, 303
- Recrutement
- Malawi University of Business and Applied Sciences (MUBAS)
-
Contact:
- Chiyembekezo Kachimanga
- Numéro de téléphone: +265 887247777
- E-mail: chembekachimanga@yahoo.co.uk
-
Chercheur principal:
- Chiyembekezo Kachimanga
-
-
-
-
Dar es Salaam Region
-
Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam Region, Tanzanie
- Pas encore de recrutement
- Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS)
-
Contact:
- Hendry R Sawe
- Numéro de téléphone: +255754885658
- E-mail: hendry_sawe@yahoo.com
-
Chercheur principal:
- Hendry R Sawe
-
-
Dodoma
-
Dodoma, Dodoma, Tanzanie
- Recrutement
- Ifakara Health Institute (IHI)
-
Contact:
- Grace Mhalu
- Numéro de téléphone: +255655888891
- E-mail: gmhalu@ihi.or.tz
-
Chercheur principal:
- Grace Mhalu
-
-
Critères de participation
Critère d'éligibilité
Âges éligibles pour étudier
Accepte les volontaires sains
Sexes éligibles pour l'étude
Méthode d'échantillonnage
Population étudiée
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.
La description
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 d'étude
Comment l'étude est-elle conçue ?
Détails de conception
- Modèles d'observation: COHORT
- Perspectives temporelles: PROSPECTIVE
Cohortes et interventions
Groupe / Cohorte |
Intervention / Traitement |
|---|---|
|
Non interventional study
Non interventional study |
Non interventional study |
Que mesure l'étude ?
Principaux critères de jugement
Mesure des résultats |
Description de la mesure |
Délai |
|---|---|---|
|
Performance Scores
Délai: 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
Délai: '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'
|
Mesures de résultats secondaires
Mesure des résultats |
Description de la mesure |
Délai |
|---|---|---|
|
Implementation Feasibility Research
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: week 4 until study completion
|
Implementation facilitators and barriers: This will be evaluated using semi-structured interviews and questionnaires |
week 4 until study completion
|
Collaborateurs et enquêteurs
Parrainer
Collaborateurs
Les enquêteurs
- Chercheur principal: Mary-Anne Hartley, LIGHT
Publications et liens utiles
Publications générales
- 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.
Dates d'enregistrement des études
Dates principales de l'étude
Début de l'étude (Réel)
Achèvement primaire (Estimé)
Achèvement de l'étude (Estimé)
Dates d'inscription aux études
Première soumission
Première soumission répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité
Première publication (Réel)
Mises à jour des dossiers d'étude
Dernière mise à jour publiée (Réel)
Dernière mise à jour soumise répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité
Dernière vérification
Plus d'information
Termes liés à cette étude
Mots clés
Autres numéros d'identification d'étude
- LiGHT-26-02
- INV-076674 (Autre subvention/numéro de financement: BILL and Melinda gates foundation)
Plan pour les données individuelles des participants (IPD)
Prévoyez-vous de partager les données individuelles des participants (DPI) ?
Description du régime IPD
We will share IPD within 12 months of study completion.
Délai de partage IPD
IPD information will be shared within 12 months of study completion.
Critères d'accès au partage IPD
Will be confirmed within 12 months of study completion
Type d'informations de prise en charge du partage d'IPD
- PROTOCOLE D'ÉTUDE
Informations sur les médicaments et les dispositifs, documents d'étude
Étudie un produit pharmaceutique réglementé par la FDA américaine
Étudie un produit d'appareil réglementé par la FDA américaine
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 .