Description Module
The Description Module contains narrative descriptions of the clinical trial, including a brief summary and detailed description. These descriptions provide important information about the study's purpose, methodology, and key details in language accessible to both researchers and the general public.
Description Module path is as follows:
Study -> Protocol Section -> Description Module
Description Module
Ignite Creation Date:
2026-03-26 @ 3:15 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2026-03-26 @ 3:15 PM
NCT ID:
NCT07414966
Brief Summary:
This prospective, multi-reader, randomized crossover trial evaluates SCOUT (Scalable Clinical Oversight via Uncertainty Triangulation), a model-agnostic meta-verification framework that selectively defers unreliable large language model (LLM) predictions to clinicians by triangulating three orthogonal uncertainty signals: model heterogeneity, stochastic inconsistency, and reasoning critique. The trial assesses whether SCOUT-assisted review can reduce physician review time compared with standard manual review of AI-generated diagnoses while maintaining non-inferior diagnostic accuracy in coronary heart disease (CHD) subtyping.
Detailed Description:
Background: Large language models are increasingly deployed in clinical workflows, yet requiring clinician review of every AI output negates the efficiency gains that motivate their adoption. SCOUT addresses this efficiency-safety paradox through algorithmic meta-verification.
The SCOUT framework triangulates three orthogonal external signals to determine case-level uncertainty: (1) Model Heterogeneity - whether a structurally different auxiliary LLM agrees with the primary model; (2) Stochastic Inconsistency - whether repeated sampling from the same model yields divergent outputs; (3) Reasoning Critique - whether an external checker model identifies logical flaws in the chain-of-thought reasoning.
In this crossover trial, 7 clinicians of varying seniority (2 junior residents, 3 senior residents, 2 attending physicians) each review all 110 cases under both standard manual review and SCOUT-assisted review workflows. The study evaluates workflow efficiency (primary endpoint) and diagnostic accuracy (secondary endpoint).
Study:
NCT07414966
Study Brief:
Protocol Section:
NCT07414966