Am I eligible? Natural Language Inference for Clinical Trial Patient Recruitment: the Patient's Point of View

Recruiting patients to participate in clinical trials can be challenging and time-consuming. Usually, participation in a clinical trial is initiated by a healthcare professional and proposed to the patient. Promoting clinical trials directly to patients via online recruitment might help to reach them more efficiently. In this study, we address the case where a patient is initiating their own recruitment process and wants to determine whether they are eligible for a given clinical trial, using their own language to describe their medical profile. To study whether this creates difficulties in the patient trial matching process, we design a new dataset and task, Natural Language Inference for Patient Recruitment (NLI4PR), in which patient language profiles must be matched to clinical trials. We create it by adapting the TREC 2022 Clinical Trial Track dataset, which provides patients' medical profiles, and rephrasing them manually using patient language. We also use the associated clinical trial reports where the patients are either eligible or excluded. We prompt several open-source Large Language Models on our task and achieve from 56.5 to 71.8 of F1 score using patient language, against 64.7 to 73.1 for the same task using medical language. When using patient language, we observe only a small loss in performance for the best model, suggesting that having the patient as a starting point could be adopted to help recruit patients for clinical trials. The corpus and code bases are all freely available on our Github and HuggingFace repositories.

SEME at SemEval-2024 Task 2: Comparing Masked and Generative Language Models on Natural Language Inference for Clinical Trials

This paper describes our submission to Task 2 of SemEval-2024: Safe Biomedical Natural Language Inference for Clinical Trials. The Multi-evidence Natural Language Inference for Clinical Trial Data (NLI4CT) consists of a Textual Entailment (TE) task focused on the evaluation of the consistency and faithfulness of Natural Language Inference (NLI) models applied to Clinical Trial Reports (CTR). We test 2 distinct approaches, one based on finetuning and ensembling Masked Language Models and the other based on prompting Large Language Models using templates, in particular, using Chain-Of-Thought and Contrastive Chain-Of-Thought. Prompting Flan-T5-large in a 2-shot setting leads to our best system that achieves 0.57 F1 score, 0.64 Faithfulness, and 0.56 Consistency.