Questa pagina è stata tradotta automaticamente e l'accuratezza della traduzione non è garantita. Si prega di fare riferimento al Versione inglese per un testo di partenza.

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

13 giugno 2026 aggiornato da: 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.

Panoramica dello studio

Stato

Iscrizione su invito

Condizioni

Intervento / Trattamento

Tipo di studio

Interventistico

Iscrizione (Stimato)

12

Fase

  • Non applicabile

Contatti e Sedi

Questa sezione fornisce i recapiti di coloro che conducono lo studio e informazioni su dove viene condotto lo studio.

Luoghi di studio

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

Criteri di partecipazione

I ricercatori cercano persone che corrispondano a una certa descrizione, chiamata criteri di ammissibilità. Alcuni esempi di questi criteri sono le condizioni generali di salute di una persona o trattamenti precedenti.

Criteri di ammissibilità

Età idonea allo studio

  • Adulto
  • Adulto più anziano

Accetta volontari sani

No

Descrizione

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.

Piano di studio

Questa sezione fornisce i dettagli del piano di studio, compreso il modo in cui lo studio è progettato e ciò che lo studio sta misurando.

Come è strutturato lo studio?

Dettagli di progettazione

  • Scopo principale: Altro
  • Assegnazione: Randomizzato
  • Modello interventistico: Assegnazione parallela
  • Mascheramento: Separare

Armi e interventi

Gruppo di partecipanti / Arm
Intervento / Trattamento
Sperimentale: test arm
GAPS-Agent
Altro: 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
Comparatore attivo: control arm
LLM
Altro: LLM
Open source large language model that is not specifically enhanced in medical field.

Cosa sta misurando lo studio?

Misure di risultato primarie

Misura del risultato
Misura Descrizione
Lasso di tempo
Overall plan Win Ratio
Lasso di tempo: 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.

Misure di risultato secondarie

Misura del risultato
Misura Descrizione
Lasso di tempo
Inter-rater agreement
Lasso di tempo: 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
Lasso di tempo: 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
Lasso di tempo: 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
Lasso di tempo: 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
Lasso di tempo: 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
Lasso di tempo: 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
Lasso di tempo: 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
Lasso di tempo: 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
Lasso di tempo: 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
Lasso di tempo: 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
Lasso di tempo: 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.

Collaboratori e investigatori

Qui è dove troverai le persone e le organizzazioni coinvolte in questo studio.

Sponsor

Peking University People's Hospital

Studiare le date dei record

Queste date tengono traccia dell'avanzamento della registrazione dello studio e dell'invio dei risultati di sintesi a ClinicalTrials.gov. I record degli studi e i risultati riportati vengono esaminati dalla National Library of Medicine (NLM) per assicurarsi che soddisfino specifici standard di controllo della qualità prima di essere pubblicati sul sito Web pubblico.

Studia le date principali

Inizio studio (Effettivo)

10 giugno 2026

Completamento primario (Stimato)

21 giugno 2026

Completamento dello studio (Stimato)

21 giugno 2026

Date di iscrizione allo studio

Primo inviato

10 giugno 2026

Primo inviato che soddisfa i criteri di controllo qualità

13 giugno 2026

Primo Inserito (Effettivo)

17 giugno 2026

Aggiornamenti dei record di studio

Ultimo aggiornamento pubblicato (Effettivo)

17 giugno 2026

Ultimo aggiornamento inviato che soddisfa i criteri QC

13 giugno 2026

Ultimo verificato

1 giugno 2026

Maggiori informazioni

Termini relativi a questo studio

Parole chiave

Termini MeSH pertinenti aggiuntivi

Altri numeri di identificazione dello studio

  • 2026PHB458-001

Piano per i dati dei singoli partecipanti (IPD)

Hai intenzione di condividere i dati dei singoli partecipanti (IPD)?

NO

Informazioni su farmaci e dispositivi, documenti di studio

Studia un prodotto farmaceutico regolamentato dalla FDA degli Stati Uniti

No

Studia un dispositivo regolamentato dalla FDA degli Stati Uniti

No

Queste informazioni sono state recuperate direttamente dal sito web clinicaltrials.gov senza alcuna modifica. In caso di richieste di modifica, rimozione o aggiornamento dei dettagli dello studio, contattare register@clinicaltrials.gov. Non appena verrà implementata una modifica su clinicaltrials.gov, questa verrà aggiornata automaticamente anche sul nostro sito web .

Prove cliniche su Cancro ai polmoni (NSCLC)

Prove cliniche su GAPS-Agent

Cerca prove simili

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

CROs by country

CROs in Canada

Condizioni

Malattie rare

Interventi farmacologici

Supplementi dietetici

Sponsor / Collaboratori

Sedi

Sottoscrivi