
Feature|Articles|August 28, 2026
Navigating the Adoption of Biomarker-Informed Trial Enrollment Beyond Oncology
Author(s)Peter Schüler, MD, Jack L. Martin, MD, FACC
Biomarker-informed trial enrollment appears straightforward for identifying responders and optimizing efficiency, but failures to account for demographic variation in cut-off selection, causality versus correlation, and composite biomarker complexity risk excluding viable patients and exacerbating disparities.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Biomarker-informed trial enrollment can optimize trial efficiency and accuracy, but it can also exclude viable patient populations or jeopardize approval. Particularly for indications beyond oncology, there is limited explicit regulatory guidance for biomarker-informed trial enrollment.1 However, methodological insights have emerged from prior successes and failures.2
Related to this article

The clinical research industry talks about patient-centeredness constantly but embeds it too late, too narrowly, and without clear ownership, and the cost shows up in enrollment failures, protocol deviations, and outcomes that don't reflect what patients actually care about.

Clinical trials have spent decades perfecting data capture, but the execution layer underneath it, including decision workflows, data collection design, and lab connectivity, remains fragmented in ways that limit what AI can realistically deliver and that quietly compromise the scientific validity of the data itself.

In this video interview, Amélie Lothe, global medical community head for rare epilepsies at UCB Pharma, explains why the full burden of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies extends far beyond clinical symptoms—and why endpoints must reflect what families are actually hoping for.

Participant engagement depends more on clarity and understanding than on gamification or incentives, requiring engagement embedded into trial workflows as a core design component rather than a peripheral consideration

Beyond Compliance: NetraMark's Joseph Geraci, PhD, on Making AI-Driven Patient Subgroups Explainable
In this episode of Beyond Compliance, Otis Johnson, PhD, MPA, founder and principal consultant at Vantix Operations, speaks with Joseph Geraci, PhD, co-founder and chief scientific and technical officer at NetraMark, about why explainable AI, not black-box prediction, is needed to reveal clinically meaningful patient subgroups in regulated drug development.

Patient-centricity remains largely consultative in most clinical research, yet rare disease communities demonstrate that genuine partnership from protocol inception improves feasibility, reduces unnecessary burden, and identifies outcomes that matter to patients themselves.
Advertisement
Advertisement

