Clinical trial matching AI
TrialScreen
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.
Published September 8, 2026 as an AI-assisted draft. The public report separates documented facts, agency judgments and unresolved questions.
Summary judgment · 55 out of 100 toward patient-directed
Public trial search and automated prescreening, distinct from sponsor-managed recruitment services and ultimate study enrollment decisions.
Mixed, open patient search funded by sponsor recruitment
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.
Patient agency
How this tool changes agency
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.
Search ranking, sponsored labels, explanation of exclusions and patient screening-data retention remain unverified
Patient agency assessment
Who sets and changes the goal?
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.
What can the patient understand, question, or do?
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.
Can the patient evaluate the conditions of use?
The baseline's consent-only sharing language is stronger than the current policy, which contains additional permitted bases. Downstream removal depends on study teams.
Text findings
Conditions of use
Published controls and their limits
The baseline's consent-only sharing language is stronger than the current policy, which contains additional permitted bases. Downstream removal depends on study teams.
What remains unknown?
Not tested or not established
Search ranking, sponsored labels, explanation of exclusions and patient screening-data retention remain unverified
Who evaluated this?
AI-assisted public-source draft
Vendor statements describe published conditions, not independently verified behavior. No clinical, security, accessibility, or legal validation is claimed. Earlier evidence remains dated in the report and history.
Sources checked
Source-specific findings and retrieval limitations are recorded in the full report.
Review provenance
Criteria
CAIHL-derived HugoScore framework and September 7 qualitative review priorities. Draft v1.2 numerical anchors remain unadopted.
Reviewer
AI-assisted public-source reassessment prepared in OpenAI Codex.
AI / model
OpenAI Codex / GPT-6
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.
Review date
2026-09-08
Limitations
Search ranking, sponsored labels, explanation of exclusions and patient screening-data retention remain unverified No live product use, patient-data upload, account creation, code audit, clinical evaluation, or independent implementation validation.
Review 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.
AI-assisted draft · Moderate for published screening and data terms (AI-assisted draft)