TrialScreen CAIHL draft report

TrialScreen: CAIHL reassessment

September 8, 2026. Published AI-assisted draft.

TrialScreen offers trial search and automated prescreening. A match is not a final enrollment decision. Current policy permits some disclosures beyond express consent alone, and removal of information already sent to study teams depends on those teams.

Scope and agency posture

Public trial search and automated prescreening, distinct from sponsor-managed recruitment services and ultimate study enrollment decisions.

Posture: Mixed, open patient search funded by sponsor recruitment.

Axis: 55/100, retained provisionally. No numerical recalibration was performed.

Sources and documented findings

• The researcher page describes managed-trial criteria, AI-assisted registry criteria, deterministic matching and recruitment lead generation. These document recruitment objectives but do not establish paid ranking of search results. https://info.trialscreen.org/Researchers

• The privacy policy calls eligibility checking automated, provides access/correction requests and forwards post-connection removal requests to study teams. It permits sponsor/site disclosure with consent or where reasonably expected and health-data processing with explicit consent or other lawful permission. A privacy-email placeholder remains. https://info.trialscreen.org/Privacy

Patient authority

Inference from the documented workflow: Historical no-account search gives users room to explore. Screening may narrow perceived options, so correction of input and access to researchers matter more than free access alone.

Critical capacity

Editorial assessment: Trial discovery supports action. The reviewed public pages do not establish an explanation or appeal path for false-negative screening, so do not equate a match result with final eligibility.

Informed control

Editorial assessment: The baseline's consent-only sharing language is stronger than the current policy, which contains additional permitted bases. Downstream removal depends on study teams.

Assessment and limits

The Mixed interpretation remains reasonable but needs precise privacy wording. Recruitment funding alone is not a finding that patient interests are subordinated.

Confidence: Moderate for published screening and data terms.

Remaining uncertainty: Search ranking, sponsored labels, explanation of exclusions and patient screening-data retention remain unverified

Published documentation is evidence of stated conditions, not proof of actual implementation. Unknowns did not receive automatic negative points. Funding, sponsorship, and public code do not determine agency by themselves.

Review provenance

• Reviewer/model: OpenAI Codex / GPT-6.
• Method: Focused public-source reassessment using CAIHL: patient authority, critical capacity, and informed control. Existing evidence plus one focused primary-source pass and at most one targeted follow-up. No live product testing. Numerical scores remain provisional editorial placements, not a new calculation.
• Human review: Hugo Campos authorized publication of these AI-assisted draft reassessments on September 8, 2026. This does not claim comprehensive human verification of every finding.
• Earlier review: 2026-06-10. Historical assessment. Earlier claims are not automatically reverified by this publication.