Ezt az oldalt automatikusan lefordították, és a fordítás pontossága nem garantált. Kérjük, olvassa el a angol verzió forrásszöveghez.

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

2026. július 29. frissítette: 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.

A tanulmány áttekintése

Állapot

Befejezve

Körülmények

Beavatkozás / kezelés

Tanulmány típusa

Beavatkozó

Beiratkozás (Tényleges)

8

Fázis

  • Nem alkalmazható

Kapcsolatok és helyek

Ez a rész a vizsgálatot végzők elérhetőségeit, valamint a vizsgálat lefolytatásának helyére vonatkozó információkat tartalmazza.

Tanulmányi helyek

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

Részvételi kritériumok

A kutatók olyan embereket keresnek, akik megfelelnek egy bizonyos leírásnak, az úgynevezett jogosultsági kritériumoknak. Néhány példa ezekre a kritériumokra a személy általános egészségi állapota vagy a korábbi kezelések.

Jogosultsági kritériumok

Tanulmányozható életkorok

  • Felnőtt
  • Idősebb felnőtt

Egészséges önkénteseket fogad

Nem

Leírás

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 1 - 4 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.

Tanulási terv

Ez a rész a vizsgálati terv részleteit tartalmazza, beleértve a vizsgálat megtervezését és a vizsgálat mérését.

Hogyan készül a tanulmány?

Tervezési részletek

  • Elsődleges cél: Egyéb
  • Kiosztás: Véletlenszerűsített
  • Beavatkozó modell: Párhuzamos hozzárendelés
  • Maszkolás: Egyetlen

Fegyverek és beavatkozások

Résztvevő csoport / kar
Beavatkozás / kezelés
Kísérleti: test arm
GAPS-Agent
Egyéb: 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
Aktív összehasonlító: control arm
LLM
Egyéb: LLM
Open source large language model that is not specifically enhanced in medical field.

Mit mér a tanulmány?

Elsődleges eredményintézkedések

Eredménymérő
Intézkedés leírása
Időkeret
Overall plan Win Ratio
Időkeret: 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.

Másodlagos eredményintézkedések

Eredménymérő
Intézkedés leírása
Időkeret
Inter-rater agreement
Időkeret: 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
Időkeret: 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
Időkeret: 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
Időkeret: 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
Időkeret: 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
Időkeret: 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
Időkeret: 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
Időkeret: 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
Időkeret: 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
Időkeret: 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
Időkeret: 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.

Együttműködők és nyomozók

Itt találhatja meg a tanulmányban érintett személyeket és szervezeteket.

Szponzor

Peking University People's Hospital

Tanulmányi rekorddátumok

Ezek a dátumok nyomon követik a ClinicalTrials.gov webhelyre benyújtott vizsgálati rekordok és összefoglaló eredmények benyújtásának folyamatát. A vizsgálati feljegyzéseket és a jelentett eredményeket a Nemzeti Orvostudományi Könyvtár (NLM) felülvizsgálja, hogy megbizonyosodjon arról, hogy megfelelnek-e az adott minőség-ellenőrzési szabványoknak, mielőtt közzéteszik őket a nyilvános weboldalon.

Tanulmány főbb dátumok

Tanulmány kezdete (Tényleges)

2026. június 10.

Elsődleges befejezés (Tényleges)

2026. június 20.

A tanulmány befejezése (Tényleges)

2026. június 21.

Tanulmányi regisztráció dátumai

Először benyújtva

2026. június 10.

Először nyújtották be, amely megfelel a minőségbiztosítási kritériumoknak

2026. június 13.

Első közzététel (Tényleges)

2026. június 17.

Tanulmányi rekordok frissítései

Utolsó frissítés közzétéve (Tényleges)

2026. július 30.

Az utolsó frissítés elküldve, amely megfelel a minőségbiztosítási kritériumoknak

2026. július 29.

Utolsó ellenőrzés

2026. július 1.

Több információ

A tanulmányhoz kapcsolódó kifejezések

Kulcsszavak

További vonatkozó MeSH feltételek

Egyéb vizsgálati azonosító számok

  • 2026PHB458-001

Terv az egyéni résztvevői adatokhoz (IPD)

Tervezi megosztani az egyéni résztvevői adatokat (IPD)?

NEM

Gyógyszer- és eszközinformációk, tanulmányi dokumentumok

Egy amerikai FDA által szabályozott gyógyszerkészítményt tanulmányoz

Nem

Egy amerikai FDA által szabályozott eszközterméket tanulmányoz

Nem

Ezt az információt közvetlenül a clinicaltrials.gov webhelyről szereztük be, változtatás nélkül. Ha bármilyen kérése van vizsgálati adatainak módosítására, eltávolítására vagy frissítésére, kérjük, írjon a következő címre: register@clinicaltrials.gov. Amint a változás bevezetésre kerül a clinicaltrials.gov oldalon, ez a webhelyünkön is automatikusan frissül. .

Iratkozz fel