Evaluating the completeness of large language model-generated clinical trial informed consent information for adolescent and young adult patients with central nervous system tumors

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by the public to seek health information, including explanations of medical treatments and clinical trials. The objective of this study was to evaluate the completeness of LLM-generated informed consent information for clinical trials involving adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumors, using U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–aligned consent requirements as the benchmark. We conducted a structured audit of five publicly available LLMs, ChatGPT 5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini (Fast), and Perplexity. Six standardized prompts were developed based on FDA informed consent requirements (21 CFR § 50.25), corresponding to key consent domains. Prompts were applied to five CNS tumor diagnoses prevalent in the AYA population. Responses were scored using an FDA-aligned checklist, with items coded as present or absent/unclear and summed to produce a consent completeness score. The sample included 25 LLM-generated informed consent responses evenly distributed across five cancer diagnoses. The median consent completeness score was 33 (interquartile range: 31–34), with scores ranging from 22 to 35, indicating variability in disclosure completeness. Completeness scores overlapped across cancer diagnoses, suggesting that variability was driven by response-level heterogeneity rather than clinical context. Domain-level completeness was generally high but showed modest variability across consent domains. Median scores were highest and most consistent for eligibility and procedures domains (median 6, IQR 6–6), while greater variability was observed in domains related to study purpose and practical details (median 5, IQR 4–5 and 5–6, respectively), contributing to overall heterogeneity in completeness. Publicly available LLMs variably and inconsistently include essential informed consent elements when responding to standardized clinical trial prompts. These findings suggest areas for further consideration regarding how general-purpose LLM-based tools are used in consent-related health communication.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Discover Public Health
Published
2026-04-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-026-01963-6
Primary Topic
Ethics in Clinical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating the completeness of large language model-generated clinical trial informed consent information for adolescent and young adult patients with central nervous system tumors

Corey H. Basch, Griselda Chapa, Erela Datuowei, Erin T. Jacques
Discover Public Health
Ethics in Clinical Research
article

Evaluating the completeness of large language model-generated clinical trial informed consent information for adolescent and young adult patients with central nervous system tumors

Corey H. Basch, Griselda Chapa, Erela Datuowei, Erin T. Jacques
article en

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by the public to seek health information, including explanations of medical treatments and clinical trials. The objective of this study was to evaluate the completeness of LLM-generated informed consent information for clinical trials involving adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumors, using U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–aligned consent requirements as the benchmark. We conducted a structured audit of five publicly available LLMs, ChatGPT 5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini (Fast), and Perplexity. Six standardized prompts were developed based on FDA informed consent requirements (21 CFR § 50.25), corresponding to key consent domains. Prompts were applied to five CNS tumor diagnoses prevalent in the AYA population. Responses were scored using an FDA-aligned checklist, with items coded as present or absent/unclear and summed to produce a consent completeness score. The sample included 25 LLM-generated informed consent responses evenly distributed across five cancer diagnoses. The median consent completeness score was 33 (interquartile range: 31–34), with scores ranging from 22 to 35, indicating variability in disclosure completeness. Completeness scores overlapped across cancer diagnoses, suggesting that variability was driven by response-level heterogeneity rather than clinical context. Domain-level completeness was generally high but showed modest variability across consent domains. Median scores were highest and most consistent for eligibility and procedures domains (median 6, IQR 6–6), while greater variability was observed in domains related to study purpose and practical details (median 5, IQR 4–5 and 5–6, respectively), contributing to overall heterogeneity in completeness. Publicly available LLMs variably and inconsistently include essential informed consent elements when responding to standardized clinical trial prompts. These findings suggest areas for further consideration regarding how general-purpose LLM-based tools are used in consent-related health communication.

Discover Public HealthVol. 23(1)
William Paterson University (US), York College, City University of New York (US), Columbia University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Ethics in Clinical Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.