Article Text
Abstract
Background Institutional review boards (IRBs) have been criticised for delays in approvals for research proposals due to inadequate or inexperienced IRB staff. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), has significant potential to assist IRB members in a prompt and efficient reviewing process.
Methods Four LLMs were evaluated on whether they could identify potential ethical issues in seven validated case studies. The LLMs were prompted with queries related to the proposed eligibility criteria of the study participants, vulnerability issues, information to be disclosed in the informed consent document (ICD), risk–benefit assessment and justification of the use of a placebo. Another query was issued to the LLMs to generate ICDs for these case scenarios.
Results All four LLMs were able to provide answers to the queries related to all seven cases. In general, the responses were homogeneous with respect to most elements. LLMs performed suboptimally in identifying the suitability of the placebo arm, risk mitigation strategies and potential risks to study participants in certain case studies with a single prompt. However, multiple prompts led to better outputs in all of these domains. Each of the LLMs included all of the fundamental elements of the ICD for all case scenarios. Use of jargon, understatement of benefits and failure to state potential risks were the key observations in the AI-generated ICD.
Conclusion It is likely that LLMs can enhance the identification of potential ethical issues in clinical research, and they can be used as an adjunct tool to prescreen research proposals and enhance the efficiency of an IRB.
- Ethics
- Informed Consent
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.
Footnotes
Contributors KS: conceived the idea; KS: data curation; KS and GS: data analysis and interpretation; KS: wrote the first draft; KS and GS: involved in revision and final approval of the manuscript; KS: guarantor.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Development and validation pathways of artificial intelligence tools evaluated in randomised clinical trials
- Experiences of using artificial intelligence in healthcare: a qualitative study of UK clinician and key stakeholder perspectives
- Current and future applications of artificial intelligence in pathology: a clinical perspective
- The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review board (IRB) members: a case study
- Variations in institutional review board processes and consent requirements for trauma research: an EAST multicenter survey
- Perceptions on artificial intelligence-based decision-making for coexisting multiple long-term health conditions: protocol for a qualitative study with patients and healthcare professionals
- Artificial intelligence in systematic reviews: promising when appropriately used
- ‘Ethical responsibility’ or ‘a whole can of worms’: differences in opinion on incidental finding review and disclosure in neuroimaging research from focus group discussions with participants, parents, IRB members, investigators, physicians and community members
- When are clinical trials beneficial for study patients and future patients? A factorial vignette-based survey of institutional review board members
- A hands-on guide on obtaining research ethics approval