Trends in AI and Human-AI Interaction in Clinical Trials -- A Hybrid Human-AI Exploration
arXiv AIArchived May 29, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2605.29096v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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-foc
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 27 May 2026]
Trends in AI and Human-AI Interaction in Clinical Trials -- A Hybrid Human-AI Exploration
Sandra Woolley, Tim Collins, Khalid Khattak, Illia Chernomorets, Ariane Arevalo, Chris Richardson
This paper examines records retrieved from the this http URL 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.
Comments: 8 pages plus 2 pages references and appendix
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2605.29096 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2605.29096v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.29096
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Tim Collins [view email]
[v1] Wed, 27 May 2026 20:56:36 UTC (472 KB)
Access Paper:
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-05
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)