Feature|Articles|November 4, 2026

Comparing OpenAI and Mistral on Clinical Trial Matching

Author(s)Simeon Devos, Valerie Vandeweerd, MD

Mistral and OpenAI produced identical overall eligibility labels across 200 synthetic patient-study assessments, with criterion-level disagreements concentrated in inclusion criteria where models switch between “Uncertain” and “Not included” when records lack sufficient evidence, so model choice should be driven by deployment architecture, control, and cost rather than assumed interchangeability.

Determining whether a patient is eligible for a clinical trial often depends on subtle details within complex, unstructured medical records. Monsana AI has developed a clinical trial screening workflow designed to accurately assess patient eligibility. In this study, we investigated the impact of changing the underlying model suite within the complete screening workflow.

Related to this article

November 4th, 2026

The Human Side of Clinical Trials: Before Burden Becomes Risk, Capturing Friction in Real Time

In Episode 4 of The Human Side of Clinical Trials, host Brian S. McGowan, PhD, FACEHP, chief learning officer and co-founder of ArcheMedX, Inc., speaks with Jason Riis, PhD, CEO and chief behavioral scientist at Behavioralize, about how capturing friction closer to the moment it happens can reveal unclear instructions, technology friction, and workarounds that retrospective surveys and debriefs tend to miss.

November 2nd, 2026

Embedding AI Across the Clinical Operating Model: Q&A with Rajneesh Patil, Syneos Health

In this Q&A, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, discusses what changes when AI is embedded across protocol strategy, data infrastructure, and workflow tools at once, where governance frameworks tend to fall short, and why CROs must orchestrate AI ecosystems rather than simply aggregate them.

October 29th, 2026

Building AI Assistants Clinical Trial Teams Can Trust: Q&A with E.K. Koh, Suvoda

In this Q&A, E.K. Koh, chief product officer at Suvoda, discusses what separates a trustworthy AI assistant from one that adds risk, why curated clinical knowledge matters more than general-purpose flexibility, and what safeguards must be in place when assistants move from answering questions to taking actions in clinical trial systems.

© putilov_denis - © putilov_denis - stock.adobe.com

October 28th, 2026

Real-Time Continuous Trials Through the Lens of Risk-Based Quality Management: Why RBQM Is the Infrastructure RTCT Cannot Exist Without

The FDA’s RTCT initiative transmits predefined, clinically meaningful signals to regulators during active trials, so its value depends entirely on the maturity of sponsors’ upstream RBQM signal intelligence, KRIs, QTLs, and root-cause context, rather than on data speed.

October 27th, 2026

Closing the Medical Writing Capacity Gap: Why Training Beats Technology

Medical writing capacity pressure is fundamentally a talent development problem, not a technology problem, since hybrid resourcing and AI cannot substitute for the experienced judgment needed to review AI output and mentor the next generation of writers.

October 21st, 2026

What Expanding AI Ecosystems Mean for Sponsor Complexity and Oversight

In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, argues that CROs must act as orchestrators rather than aggregators—and that the real test of any AI ecosystem is whether it reduces sponsor coordination burden or just hands it back to them.

October 20th, 2026

Where AI Governance in Clinical Development Falls Short

In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, identifies three recurring failure modes in AI governance frameworks—and explains why responsible AI must be an ongoing operating discipline, not a one-time approval gate.

November 3rd, 2026

From Complexity to Endpoint Meaningfulness: Addressing Key Neuroscience Trial Challenges with eCOA

Neuroscience trials struggle to show benefit because symptoms are subjective and variable, and eCOA strengthens dossiers by standardizing ClinRO administration, capturing outcomes in real time to reduce recall bias, and adding patient and caregiver perspectives that clinician scales miss.