Deze pagina is automatisch vertaald en de nauwkeurigheid van de vertaling kan niet worden gegarandeerd. Raadpleeg de Engelse versie voor een brontekst.

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

13 juni 2026 bijgewerkt door: 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.

Studie Overzicht

Toestand

Aanmelden op uitnodiging

Conditie

Interventie / Behandeling

Studietype

Ingrijpend

Inschrijving (Geschat)

12

Fase

  • Niet toepasbaar

Contacten en locaties

In dit gedeelte vindt u de contactgegevens van degenen die het onderzoek uitvoeren en informatie over waar dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd.

Studie Locaties

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

Deelname Criteria

Onderzoekers zoeken naar mensen die aan een bepaalde beschrijving voldoen, de zogenaamde geschiktheidscriteria. Enkele voorbeelden van deze criteria zijn iemands algemene gezondheidstoestand of eerdere behandelingen.

Geschiktheidscriteria

Leeftijden die in aanmerking komen voor studie

  • Volwassen
  • Oudere volwassene

Accepteert gezonde vrijwilligers

Nee

Beschrijving

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.

Studie plan

Dit gedeelte bevat details van het studieplan, inclusief hoe de studie is opgezet en wat de studie meet.

Hoe is de studie opgezet?

Ontwerpdetails

  • Primair doel: Ander
  • Toewijzing: Gerandomiseerd
  • Interventioneel model: Parallelle opdracht
  • Masker: Enkel

Wapens en interventies

Deelnemersgroep / Arm
Interventie / Behandeling
Experimenteel: test arm
GAPS-Agent
Ander: 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
Actieve vergelijker: control arm
LLM
Ander: LLM
Open source large language model that is not specifically enhanced in medical field.

Wat meet het onderzoek?

Primaire uitkomstmaten

Uitkomstmaat
Maatregel Beschrijving
Tijdsspanne
Overall plan Win Ratio
Tijdsspanne: 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.

Secundaire uitkomstmaten

Uitkomstmaat
Maatregel Beschrijving
Tijdsspanne
Inter-rater agreement
Tijdsspanne: 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
Tijdsspanne: 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
Tijdsspanne: 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
Tijdsspanne: 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
Tijdsspanne: 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
Tijdsspanne: 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
Tijdsspanne: 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
Tijdsspanne: 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
Tijdsspanne: 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
Tijdsspanne: 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
Tijdsspanne: 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.

Medewerkers en onderzoekers

Hier vindt u mensen en organisaties die betrokken zijn bij dit onderzoek.

Sponsor

Peking University People's Hospital

Studie record data

Deze datums volgen de voortgang van het onderzoeksdossier en de samenvatting van de ingediende resultaten bij ClinicalTrials.gov. Studieverslagen en gerapporteerde resultaten worden beoordeeld door de National Library of Medicine (NLM) om er zeker van te zijn dat ze voldoen aan specifieke kwaliteitscontrolenormen voordat ze op de openbare website worden geplaatst.

Bestudeer belangrijke data

Studie start (Werkelijk)

10 juni 2026

Primaire voltooiing (Geschat)

21 juni 2026

Studie voltooiing (Geschat)

21 juni 2026

Studieregistratiedata

Eerst ingediend

10 juni 2026

Eerst ingediend dat voldeed aan de QC-criteria

13 juni 2026

Eerst geplaatst (Werkelijk)

17 juni 2026

Updates van studierecords

Laatste update geplaatst (Werkelijk)

17 juni 2026

Laatste update ingediend die voldeed aan QC-criteria

13 juni 2026

Laatst geverifieerd

1 juni 2026

Meer informatie

Termen gerelateerd aan deze studie

Trefwoorden

Aanvullende relevante MeSH-voorwaarden

Andere studie-ID-nummers

  • 2026PHB458-001

Plan Individuele Deelnemersgegevens (IPD)

Bent u van plan om gegevens van individuele deelnemers (IPD) te delen?

NEE

Informatie over medicijnen en apparaten, studiedocumenten

Bestudeert een door de Amerikaanse FDA gereguleerd geneesmiddel

Nee

Bestudeert een door de Amerikaanse FDA gereguleerd apparaatproduct

Nee

Deze informatie is zonder wijzigingen rechtstreeks van de website clinicaltrials.gov gehaald. Als u verzoeken heeft om uw onderzoeksgegevens te wijzigen, te verwijderen of bij te werken, neem dan contact op met register@clinicaltrials.gov. Zodra er een wijziging wordt doorgevoerd op clinicaltrials.gov, wordt deze ook automatisch bijgewerkt op onze website .

Klinische onderzoeken op Longkanker (NSCLC)

Klinische onderzoeken op GAPS-Agent

Zoek naar vergelijkbare onderzoeken

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

CROs by country

CROs in Romania

Voorwaarden

Zeldzame ziekten

Geneesmiddelinterventies

Voedingssupplementen

Sponsor / medewerkers

Locaties

Abonneren