Ta strona została przetłumaczona automatycznie i dokładność tłumaczenia nie jest gwarantowana. Proszę odnieść się do angielska wersja za tekst źródłowy.

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

13 czerwca 2026 zaktualizowane przez: 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.

Przegląd badań

Status

Rejestracja na zaproszenie

Warunki

Interwencja / Leczenie

Typ studiów

Interwencyjne

Zapisy (Szacowany)

12

Faza

  • Nie dotyczy

Kontakty i lokalizacje

Ta sekcja zawiera dane kontaktowe osób prowadzących badanie oraz informacje o tym, gdzie badanie jest przeprowadzane.

Lokalizacje studiów

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

Kryteria uczestnictwa

Badacze szukają osób, które pasują do określonego opisu, zwanego kryteriami kwalifikacyjnymi. Niektóre przykłady tych kryteriów to ogólny stan zdrowia danej osoby lub wcześniejsze leczenie.

Kryteria kwalifikacji

Wiek uprawniający do nauki

  • Dorosły
  • Starszy dorosły

Akceptuje zdrowych ochotników

Nie

Opis

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.

Plan studiów

Ta sekcja zawiera szczegółowe informacje na temat planu badania, w tym sposób zaprojektowania badania i jego pomiary.

Jak projektuje się badanie?

Szczegóły projektu

  • Główny cel: Inny
  • Przydział: Randomizowane
  • Model interwencyjny: Przydział równoległy
  • Maskowanie: Pojedynczy

Broń i interwencje

Grupa uczestników / Arm
Interwencja / Leczenie
Eksperymentalny: test arm
GAPS-Agent
Inny: 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
Aktywny komparator: control arm
LLM
Inny: LLM
Open source large language model that is not specifically enhanced in medical field.

Co mierzy badanie?

Podstawowe miary wyniku

Miara wyniku
Opis środka
Ramy czasowe
Overall plan Win Ratio
Ramy czasowe: 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.

Miary wyników drugorzędnych

Miara wyniku
Opis środka
Ramy czasowe
Inter-rater agreement
Ramy czasowe: 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
Ramy czasowe: 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
Ramy czasowe: 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
Ramy czasowe: 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
Ramy czasowe: 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
Ramy czasowe: 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
Ramy czasowe: 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
Ramy czasowe: 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
Ramy czasowe: 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
Ramy czasowe: 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
Ramy czasowe: 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.

Współpracownicy i badacze

Tutaj znajdziesz osoby i organizacje zaangażowane w to badanie.

Sponsor

Peking University People's Hospital

Daty zapisu na studia

Daty te śledzą postęp w przesyłaniu rekordów badań i podsumowań wyników do ClinicalTrials.gov. Zapisy badań i zgłoszone wyniki są przeglądane przez National Library of Medicine (NLM), aby upewnić się, że spełniają określone standardy kontroli jakości, zanim zostaną opublikowane na publicznej stronie internetowej.

Główne daty studiów

Rozpoczęcie studiów (Rzeczywisty)

10 czerwca 2026

Zakończenie podstawowe (Szacowany)

21 czerwca 2026

Ukończenie studiów (Szacowany)

21 czerwca 2026

Daty rejestracji na studia

Pierwszy przesłany

10 czerwca 2026

Pierwszy przesłany, który spełnia kryteria kontroli jakości

13 czerwca 2026

Pierwszy wysłany (Rzeczywisty)

17 czerwca 2026

Aktualizacje rekordów badań

Ostatnia wysłana aktualizacja (Rzeczywisty)

17 czerwca 2026

Ostatnia przesłana aktualizacja, która spełniała kryteria kontroli jakości

13 czerwca 2026

Ostatnia weryfikacja

1 czerwca 2026

Więcej informacji

Terminy związane z tym badaniem

Słowa kluczowe

Dodatkowe istotne warunki MeSH

Inne numery identyfikacyjne badania

  • 2026PHB458-001

Plan dla danych uczestnika indywidualnego (IPD)

Planujesz udostępniać dane poszczególnych uczestników (IPD)?

NIE

Informacje o lekach i urządzeniach, dokumenty badawcze

Bada produkt leczniczy regulowany przez amerykańską FDA

Nie

Bada produkt urządzenia regulowany przez amerykańską FDA

Nie

Te informacje zostały pobrane bezpośrednio ze strony internetowej clinicaltrials.gov bez żadnych zmian. Jeśli chcesz zmienić, usunąć lub zaktualizować dane swojego badania, skontaktuj się z register@clinicaltrials.gov. Gdy tylko zmiana zostanie wprowadzona na stronie clinicaltrials.gov, zostanie ona automatycznie zaktualizowana również na naszej stronie internetowej .

Badania kliniczne na Rak płuc (NSCLC)

Badania kliniczne na GAPS-Agent

Wyszukaj podobne próby

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

CROs by country

CROs in United Arab Emirates

Warunki

Rzadkie choroby

Interwencje lekowe

Suplementy diety

Sponsor / Współpracownicy

Lokalizacje

Subskrybuj