From Bench-to-Bedside: A Review of Clinical Trials in Drug Discovery and Development

Clinical trials are essential for advancing cancer care and drug development, but many fail because of insufficient patient enrollment. While there is growing interest in using AI to support patient recruitment, existing systems largely perform eligibility assessment alone and have rarely been evaluated in real-world oncology workflows. Here we present TrialGPT 2.0, an AI-assisted clinical trial recommendation system designed for real-world deployment. Rather than asking only whether a patient may qualify, the system also assesses which trials warrant further consideration given the patient's current clinical needs and local workflow priorities, and provides structured, inspectable explanations for expert review. Importantly, we evaluated TrialGPT 2.0 retrospectively and prospectively across multiple oncology-focused settings, spanning government, academic cancer-center, patient-advocacy, and NIH referral workflows. In retrospective multicenter cohorts comprising 288 cases, TrialGPT 2.0 retrieved at least one clinician-recommended trial in its top 10 recommendations for approximately 91% of cases while reducing clinician screening time by 55.0%. In a six-month prospective evaluation embedded in an active precision oncology tumor board, TrialGPT 2.0 contributed additional trial opportunities missed by the routine workflow, expanding patient access to clinical trial participation by 90.9%. To support scientific reproducibility, we also introduce NIH-TrialBench, a clinician-authored dataset comprising 126 diverse synthetic patient vignettes and matching scenarios from 11 NIH Institutes and Centers. Together, these results support the value of AI to assist clinical trial matching by improving clinician efficiency and identifying frequently overlooked trial opportunities, ultimately helping to expand and accelerate accrual to cancer trials.

This paper examines records retrieved from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry to characterize temporal trends in AI terminology and the geographical distribution of AI trials. The work also reports on an exploratory hybrid human-AI approach to analyzing human-AI interaction trends in registered clinical trials. The hybrid workflow comprised a frontier generative AI model (GPT-5.5) and human review to screen and categorize records returned by an AI-focused search. The findings indicate a marked increase in AI-related trials over time, with recent growth in references to machine learning, deep learning, chatbots, GPTs, and large language models. Geographically, China and the United States accounted for the largest numbers of AI-related trials, with notable recent increases in several other countries including Italy, France, Spain, the UK and Turkey (Türkiye). In a random sample of 100 records, human and AI classifiers showed good agreement in identifying studies not substantively using AI, but lower agreement in classifying human-AI interaction, particularly where health professional interaction was ambiguous or insufficiently described. Overall, the results suggest that hybrid human-AI screening of clinical trial records is potentially viable, but clearer trial reporting and more precise interaction definitions will benefit the process.

We study clinical trial table reasoning, where answers are not directly stored in visible cells but must be reasoned from semantic understanding through normalization, classification, extraction, or lightweight domain reasoning. Motivated by the observation that current LLM approaches often suffer from "bad reasoning" under implicit planning assumptions, we focus on settings in which the model must recover implicit attributes such as therapy type, added agents, endpoint roles, or follow-up status from partially observed clinical-trial tables. We propose SCOPE (Structured Clinical hybrid Planning for Evidence retrieval in clinical trials), a multi-LLM planner-based framework that decomposes the task into row selection, structured planning, and execution. The planner makes the source field, reasoning rules, and output constraints explicit before answer generation, reducing ambiguity relative to direct prompting. We evaluate SCOPE on 1,500 hybrid reasoning questions over oncology clinical-trial tables against zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, TableGPT2, Blend-SQL, and EHRAgent. Results show that explicit multi-LLM planning improves accuracy for reasoning-based questions while offering a stronger accuracy-efficiency tradeoff than heavier agentic baselines. Our findings position clinical trial reasoning as a distinct table understanding problem and highlight hybrid planner-based decomposition as an effective solution