Register Now: Beyond EDC: Designing a Connected Data Strategy for Predictive Clinical Development
Commentary|Videos|December 2, 2024

Using Artificial Intelligence to Manage Clinical Trial Conduct

In this video interview, Jeff Sidell, PhD, chief technology officer, Advarra, talks AI and how it can automate repetitive processes.

In a recent video interview with Applied Clinical Trials, Jeff Sidell, PhD, chief technology officer, Advarra, discussed current challenges in clinical research technology. He highlighted the overabundance of systems and emphasized the need for integration to streamline processes and reduce administrative overhead. Sidell also discussed the potential of AI, particularly predictive analytics, to automate repetitive tasks, enhancing efficiency and quality.

A transcript of Sidell’s conversation with ACT can be found below.

ACT: What are some unique areas of clinical research that could benefit from the use of artificial intelligence (AI)?

Sidell: I know that there's been a lot of attention paid to AI in the actual research cycle, that's not what Advarra is focused on. We're focused on the conduct of the clinical trials, all the way from submission to the IRB (institutional review board) through the execution of the trial and oversight by the sponsors of the sites and the subjects. If you think about it, that whole process is a series of smaller processes. It's people doing things somewhat repetitively. Clinical trials are not a factory, they're not banging out motor cars, but it is nonetheless repetitive processes, or similar processes. That's an area where artificial intelligence, particularly predictive analytics, can come in and automate, or semi-automate the process, and the efficiency gains effectiveness. A lot of people think you're going to make it faster, and my job is going to go away, or something like that. It does make the process more efficient. It allows people to do more with the same number of resources, but it also will typically increase the quality of the work that's done and it's not that the machine learning models don't make mistakes, but they are incredibly dependable—if it's been trained correctly, if the model is a good model—then they will repeatedly do what they were trained to do over and over and over and they'll do it well. They don't have bad days. They don't come in sick or hungover or something like that. They do have to be kept up to date, though. There is a maintenance aspect to introducing machine learning models into processes, but that's where I see the greatest, ripe for opportunity area, because it is such a process-heavy industry. Those processes can be made much, much, much more efficient.


Related to this article

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.
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.
Where the Industry Is Headed as Clinical, Operational, and Real-World Data Connect
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, describes the industry’s trajectory toward a unified intelligence orchestration environment—and explains why the future isn’t one model that knows everything, but a trusted system that brings the right evidence to the right human decision.
© putilov_denis - © putilov_denis - stock.adobe.com
Real-time clinical trials require standardized digital data capture at the point of care through scaled eSource-EDC-EHR integration, but progress stalls because competing standards lack regulatory enforcement and one-off system integrations cannot scale beyond single studies without industry-wide alignment and legal clarity on data ownership.
© photon_photo - © photon_photo - stock.adobe.com
Standardized measurement across five oncology centers found that clinical research coordinators rated eSource-enabled workflows positively (Overall Mean Satisfaction 5.79 of 7), with reduced manual entry and electronic data transfer earning strong marks, while perceived reduction in sponsor and monitor queries lagged as the one domain below threshold.