Skip to content
← Back to explorer

TimeTox: An LLM-Based Pipeline for Automated Extraction of Time Toxicity from Clinical Trial Protocols

Saketh Vinjamuri, Marielle Fis Loperena, Marie C. Spezia, Ramez Kouzy · Mar 22, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Time toxicity, the cumulative healthcare contact days from clinical trial participation, is an important but labor-intensive metric to extract from protocol documents. We developed TimeTox, an LLM-based pipeline for automated extraction of time toxicity from Schedule of Assessments tables. TimeTox uses Google's Gemini models in three stages: summary extraction from full-length protocol PDFs, time toxicity quantification at six cumulative timepoints for each treatment arm, and multi-run consensus via position-based arm matching. We validated against 20 synthetic schedules (240 comparisons) and assessed reproducibility on 644 real-world oncology protocols. Two architectures were compared: single-pass (vanilla) and two-stage (structure-then-count). The two-stage pipeline achieved 100% clinically acceptable accuracy ($\pm$3 days) on synthetic data (MAE 0.81 days) versus 41.5% for vanilla (MAE 9.0 days). However, on real-world protocols, the vanilla pipeline showed superior reproducibility: 95.3% clinically acceptable accuracy (IQR $\leq$ 3 days) across 3 runs on 644 protocols, with 82.0% perfect stability (IQR = 0). The production pipeline extracted time toxicity for 1,288 treatment arms across multiple disease sites. Extraction stability on real-world data, rather than accuracy on synthetic benchmarks, is the decisive factor for production LLM deployment.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Time toxicity, the cumulative healthcare contact days from clinical trial participation, is an important but labor-intensive metric to extract from protocol documents."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Time toxicity, the cumulative healthcare contact days from clinical trial participation, is an important but labor-intensive metric to extract from protocol documents."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Time toxicity, the cumulative healthcare contact days from clinical trial participation, is an important but labor-intensive metric to extract from protocol documents."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Time toxicity, the cumulative healthcare contact days from clinical trial participation, is an important but labor-intensive metric to extract from protocol documents."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy, Mae, Toxicity

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Time toxicity, the cumulative healthcare contact days from clinical trial participation, is an important but labor-intensive metric to extract from protocol documents."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Medicine

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracymaetoxicity

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Time toxicity, the cumulative healthcare contact days from clinical trial participation, is an important but labor-intensive metric to extract from protocol documents.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Time toxicity, the cumulative healthcare contact days from clinical trial participation, is an important but labor-intensive metric to extract from protocol documents.
  • We developed TimeTox, an LLM-based pipeline for automated extraction of time toxicity from Schedule of Assessments tables.
  • TimeTox uses Google's Gemini models in three stages: summary extraction from full-length protocol PDFs, time toxicity quantification at six cumulative timepoints for each treatment arm, and multi-run consensus via position-based arm matching.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • The two-stage pipeline achieved 100% clinically acceptable accuracy (\pm3 days) on synthetic data (MAE 0.81 days) versus 41.5% for vanilla (MAE 9.0 days).
  • However, on real-world protocols, the vanilla pipeline showed superior reproducibility: 95.3% clinically acceptable accuracy (IQR \leq 3 days) across 3 runs on 644 protocols, with 82.0% perfect stability (IQR = 0).
  • Extraction stability on real-world data, rather than accuracy on synthetic benchmarks, is the decisive factor for production LLM deployment.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Extraction stability on real-world data, rather than accuracy on synthetic benchmarks, is the decisive factor for production LLM deployment.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy, mae, toxicity

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.