A Preregistered Multi-Cohort Evaluation of the FATHOM AI System for Molecular Testing Prioritization to Support Clinical Trial Enrollment (FATHOM)
Many clinical trials evaluating cancer treatments require patients to undergo testing for specific molecular markers as part of eligibility screening, typically using immunohistochemistry or sequencing. Because relatively few patients may carry a required marker, trial investigators often test large numbers of patients to identify the few who may ultimately qualify for enrollment.
Pathology laboratories routinely produce hematoxylin-and-eosin (H&E) slides during cancer diagnosis. Pathology foundation models-large neural networks pretrained on millions of histology images-have shown promise in predicting molecular characteristics from these slides. Researchers can use these models to build classifiers that predict specific molecular markers and prioritize patients for confirmatory testing.
This study evaluates FATHOM (Facilitating Accrual through Tumor Histology and Omics Matching), an autonomous research system powered by large multimodal models. Its agents read registered clinical trial records, identify molecular markers used as enrollment criteria, build prediction models using pathology foundation models, select the individual models or model combinations that best meet prespecified criteria, set their decision thresholds, and determine whether to deploy them. Together, a prediction model, its decision threshold, and the decision to deploy it constitute an AI prediction policy.
Before FATHOM runs, the investigators preregister the clinical trial records that its agents may read, the cutoff date that defines which trial information they may use, the rules governing the agents, and the analysis plan. The system timestamps and locks each policy immediately after an agent produces it. The investigators then apply the policies to archived patient slides and compare their predictions with existing molecular marker results.
The primary outcome is the proportion of prespecified evaluation scenarios in which an agent-generated policy, compared with universal molecular testing, either enriches the population selected for confirmatory testing with marker-positive patients or safely spares patients from confirmatory testing while meeting prespecified performance criteria.
This study analyzes existing pathology images and clinical trial records only. It does not enroll or contact patients, influence patient care, or affect participation in any clinical trial.
調査の概要
状態
状態
詳細な説明
WHAT IS REGISTERED. This study evaluates screening policies generated by autonomous research agents using archived pathology slides and existing molecular marker profiles. The study does not prospectively enroll or contact patients. The investigators register the clinical trial corpus that the agents may read, the trial-record cutoff date, the information that the agents may access, the rules governing their work, and the methods used to score their policies.
THE AGENTS. Each agent may access the registered clinical trial corpus, published literature, out-of-fold performance estimates for its own classifiers, and any development data identified in its manifest. The agent receives no results from any sealed evaluation cohort. For visual recognition, each agent uses pathology AI models as feature extractors and trains classifiers on the extracted features. The agent determines which molecular markers to model, which model to use, how to set each operating threshold, and whether to deploy the resulting policy. The agent records each decision and its rationale.
THE MANIFEST. Each agent run produces a timestamped manifest listing every policy generated and each policy's final deployment decision. On the study start date, the investigators designate the autonomous-agent approach and its comparators for the primary evaluation.
TRIAL DEMAND CUTOFF. Trials first posted before January 1, 2026, define retrospective trial demand. Trials first posted on or after January 1, 2026, are used for the temporal generalization evaluation.
SEALED ANALYSIS RULE. Each policy result corresponds to an evaluation scenario, defined as one cohort paired with one molecular marker. For each scenario, the study logs and publishes the date on which investigators first compare any model output with the ground-truth marker result.
COHORTS. The study uses archived institutional and consortium cohorts containing routine diagnostic H&E slides linked to molecular profiles. No clinician uses model output from this study to make patient-care decisions.
研究の種類
研究の種類
入学 (推定)
入学
連絡先と場所
研究連絡先
研究連絡先
- 名前:Chi-Kang Pai
- 電話番号:6172334924
- メール:chikang_pai@fas.harvard.edu
研究場所
-
-
Massachusetts
-
Boston、Massachusetts、アメリカ、02115
- Harvard Medical School
-
コンタクト:
- Chi-Kang Pai
- 電話番号:6172334924
- メール:chikang_pai@fas.harvard.edu
-
主任研究者:
- Kun-Hsing Yu
-
-
参加基準
適格基準
適格基準
就学可能な年齢
- 子
- 大人
- 高齢者
健康ボランティアの受け入れ
サンプリング方法
調査対象母集団
説明
Inclusion Criteria:
- Patients with a histologically confirmed cancer
- Availability of relevant molecular profiling results
- At least one diagnostic hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) whole-slide image
Exclusion Criteria:
- Poor-quality or unreadable slides, assessed independently of model output
- Patients whose slides were used to train a policy's classifier, for that policy's evaluation
研究計画
研究はどのように設計されていますか?
デザインの詳細
グループ/コホートの数
コホートと介入
グループ/コホートグループ/コホート |
|---|
|
Archived evaluation cohorts
Patient records and data from archived multi-institutional cohorts with routine H&E whole-slide images and molecular profiles.
No intervention is assigned, and no patient is contacted.
|
この研究は何を測定していますか?
主要な結果の測定
主要な結果の測定
結果測定 |
メジャーの説明 |
時間枠 |
|---|---|---|
|
Proportion of prespecified evaluation scenarios in which an AI-generated deployment policy demonstrates effective screening enrichment or rule-out performance
時間枠:Periprocedural (at the time of pathology slide evaluation)
|
An evaluation scenario consists of one molecular marker evaluated in one study cohort.
For each prespecified scenario, the study assesses whether the AI system generates a policy that either prioritizes patients more likely to carry the marker for confirmatory testing or identifies patients who may safely be spared testing, compared with testing everyone.
The outcome is the proportion of scenarios in which the policy meets these performance criteria.
|
Periprocedural (at the time of pathology slide evaluation)
|
二次結果の測定
二次結果の測定
結果測定 |
メジャーの説明 |
時間枠 |
|---|---|---|
|
Per-scenario performance of each AI-generated deployment policy
時間枠:Periprocedural (at the time of pathology slide evaluation)
|
For each evaluation scenario, the study reports sensitivity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, the proportion of patients spared confirmatory testing, and the applicable enrichment or depletion ratio with its confidence interval.
|
Periprocedural (at the time of pathology slide evaluation)
|
|
Temporal generalizability for trials first posted on or after January 1, 2026
時間枠:Periprocedural (at the time of pathology slide evaluation)
|
Among trials first posted on or after January 1, 2026 that require a molecular biomarker for enrollment, the study evaluates: (1) the proportion of biomarkers and trials for which the agentic AI screening approach is useful; and (2) the estimated number of patients who would benefit from AI-guided screening compared with universal molecular testing.
Estimates are based on model performance and biomarker prevalence observed in the evaluation cohorts.
|
Periprocedural (at the time of pathology slide evaluation)
|
|
Temporal performance for trials first posted on or before December 31, 2025
時間枠:Periprocedural (at the time of pathology slide evaluation)
|
Among trials first posted on or before December 31, 2025, that require a molecular biomarker for enrollment, the study evaluates: (1) the proportion of biomarkers and trials for which the agentic AI screening approach is useful; and (2) the estimated number of patients who would benefit from AI-guided screening compared with universal molecular testing.
Estimates are based on model performance and biomarker prevalence observed in the evaluation cohorts.
|
Periprocedural (at the time of pathology slide evaluation)
|
|
Proportion of evaluation scenarios in which a non-default AI-generated deployment policy demonstrates effective screening enrichment or rule-out performance
時間枠:Periprocedural (at the time of pathology slide evaluation)
|
Among scenarios in which the deployed policy is not the default strategy of testing everyone, the study assesses whether the AI system generates a policy that either prioritizes patients more likely to carry the marker for confirmatory testing or identifies patients who may safely be spared testing, compared with testing everyone.
The outcome is the proportion of these scenarios in which the policy meets these performance criteria.
|
Periprocedural (at the time of pathology slide evaluation)
|
協力者と研究者
研究記録日
主要日程の研究
研究開始 (推定)
研究開始
一次修了 (推定)
一次修了
研究の完了 (推定)
研究の完了
試験登録日
最初に提出
最初に提出
QC基準を満たした最初の提出物
QC基準を満たした最初の提出物
最初の投稿 (実際)
最初の投稿
学習記録の更新
投稿された最後の更新 (実際)
投稿された最後の更新
QC基準を満たした最後の更新が送信されました
QC基準を満たした最後の更新が送信されました
最終確認日
最終確認日
詳しくは
本研究に関する用語
追加の関連 MeSH 用語
- 泌尿生殖器疾患
- 生殖器疾患
- 内分泌系疾患
- 泌尿生殖器腫瘍
- 部位別新生物
- 男性の泌尿生殖器疾患
- 腎臓病
- 泌尿器疾患
- 女性の泌尿生殖器疾患
- 女性の泌尿生殖器疾患と妊娠合併症
- 腸の病気
- 気道疾患
- 組織型別の新生物
- 消化器腫瘍
- 消化器系腫瘍
- 消化器系疾患
- 消化器疾患
- 胃の病気
- 腸の腫瘍
- 直腸疾患
- 子宮の病気
- 生殖器疾患、女性
- 肺疾患
- 内分泌腺腫瘍
- 膵臓の病気
- 新生物、腺および上皮
- 気道腫瘍
- 胸部腫瘍
- 結腸疾患
- 卵巣疾患
- 付属器疾患
- 性器腫瘍、女性
- 性腺疾患
- 皮膚疾患
- 乳房の病気
- 泌尿器科の新生物
- 新生物、神経上皮
- 神経外胚葉性腫瘍
- 新生物、生殖細胞および胚
- 新生物、神経組織
- 子宮腫瘍
- 皮膚および結合組織疾患
- 新生物
- 胃の新生物
- 肺新生物
- 結腸直腸腫瘍
- 卵巣腫瘍
- 乳房腫瘍
- 膵臓の新生物
- 神経膠腫
- 頭頸部腫瘍
- 子宮内膜腫瘍
- 腎腫瘍
その他の研究ID番号
その他の研究ID番号
- FATHOM
個々の参加者データ (IPD) の計画
個々の参加者データ (IPD) を共有する予定はありますか?
医薬品およびデバイス情報、研究文書
米国FDA規制医薬品の研究
米国FDA規制機器製品の研究
この情報は、Web サイト clinicaltrials.gov から変更なしで直接取得したものです。研究の詳細を変更、削除、または更新するリクエストがある場合は、register@clinicaltrials.gov。 までご連絡ください。 clinicaltrials.gov に変更が加えられるとすぐに、ウェブサイトでも自動的に更新されます。