The exact text we saved

This is the version exactly as it was saved, character for character. The SHA-256 hash below is a 64-character code worked out from that text. Run the same text through SHA-256 and you get the same code; change a single letter and the code comes out completely different. Each version also stores the previous version’s hash, which chains them together so no version can be swapped out quietly.

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-2470
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-11-11T12:02:16.271321Z
status: published
lens: trace
sector: health
headline: Quantifying cancer clinical trial eligibility using artificial Intelligence-Based matching
dek: Purpose: To develop and validate an artificial intelligence-enabled platform that combines efficient screening with explicit eligibility logic by converting unstructured cancer trial criteria into reusable structured queries, and illustrates potential eligibility using synthetic patients.
Methods: We downloaded actively recruiting US interventional treatment trials for advanced/metastatic breast cancer, colon cancer, and non-small cell lung cancer from ClinicalTrials.gov. Medical oncologists created 24 synthetic…
gain_title: In a validation using 24 synthetic patients, an AI tool matched each patient against 746 cancer trials in a median 0.459 seconds and agreed with physician consensus on 230 of 240 patient-trial pairs (95.8%).
problem_title: The automated matching missed some eligible pairs, with sensitivity of 83.3% against physician consensus, and was tested only on synthetic vignettes that left out laboratory results and comorbidities.
trace_subject: AI-generated SQL for matching cancer patients to clinical trials
gain_reading: In a validation using 24 synthetic patients, an AI tool matched each patient against 746 cancer trials in a median 0.459 seconds and agreed with physician consensus on 230 of 240 patient-trial pairs (95.8%).
gain_evidence: took a median of 0.459 seconds per patient | automated matching agreed on 230/240 patient-trial pairs (95.8%
problem_reading: The automated matching missed some eligible pairs, with sensitivity of 83.3% against physician consensus, and was tested only on synthetic vignettes that left out laboratory results and comorbidities.
problem_evidence: missed matches underscore the need for further validation
quick_read: Researchers built a platform in which a large language model turns the free-text eligibility criteria of cancer trials into SQL code, so matching can run as explicit rules without further AI inference. Using 24 synthetic patient vignettes written by medical oncologists, matching across 746 trials took a median of 0.459 seconds per patient.

Against physician consensus on ten trials, the tool agreed on 230 of 240 patient-trial pairs (95.8%), with 100% specificity and 83.3% sensitivity. That means it rarely flagged ineligible patients as eligible, but it did miss some true matches.

Potentially eligible trials ranged from 10 to 258 per synthetic patient without geographic limits. Counts fell with worse performance status and with geographic restriction, and were relatively stable across ages 30 to 90. The work used synthetic patients, so performance on real patient records is not yet known.
limitation: Matching was evaluated only on 24 synthetic patient vignettes that did not include laboratory results or comorbidities, and the authors say missed matches mean further validation is needed.
tag: Dual reading
key_points: The team downloaded actively recruiting US interventional treatment trials for advanced or metastatic breast, colon and non-small cell lung cancer from ClinicalTrials.gov; 746 of 833 candidates met inclusion criteria. | Medical oncologists wrote 24 synthetic patient vignettes; the language model converted these into structured records. | Matching all 746 trials took a median of 0.459 seconds per patient, excluding data preparation. | Against physician consensus, automated matching agreed on 230 of 240 pairs (95.8%), with sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 100%. | Potentially eligible trials per synthetic patient ranged from 10 to 258 with no geographic restriction. | Later-phase, randomized and molecularly selective trials generally matched fewer vignettes. | Physicians edited the generated eligibility code for 30 trials as part of validation.
rundown: The platform separates the language model's work from the matching itself. The model translates trial criteria into SQL and patient information into structured records once, and matching then runs as rule-based queries, which keeps the logic explicit and reusable across patients.

Validation had two parts: physicians edited generated eligibility code for 30 trials, and two physicians independently assessed eligibility across ten trials, followed by consensus adjudication. Against that consensus, the tool's 100% specificity and 83.3% sensitivity point to missed matches rather than false ones.

In the descriptive analysis, the number of potentially eligible trials fell as performance status worsened and as geographic restrictions were applied, but barely changed across ages 30 to 90. Later-phase, randomized and molecularly selective trials matched fewer of the vignettes.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | JNCI Cancer Spectrum | https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkag120 | 2026-11-10
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

SHA-256 hash

3faaaa952cfbf04eb9b3b4f1b5892293ac69884d7a52fc11ffd429f9ccbeff8d

Previous version’s hash

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000