SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Maxim Khan

Publications and source records attributed to Maxim Khan.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

DeepImagine: Clinical Trial Outcome Prediction via Stepwise Local Counterfactual Imaginations

Predicting the outcomes of prospective clinical trials remains a major challenge. Clinical trial outcomes result from complex interactions among experimental factors such as drug interventions, participant demographics, and protocols. Here, we introduce DeepImagine, a framework that predicts target trial outcomes through stepwise counterfactual imagination anchored on historical trials with observed results. Starting from a relevant historical trial, DeepImagine sequentially modifies one differing experimental factor at a time. With each step a large language model (LLM) is posed a local counterfactual: how would the current imagined outcome change with this single perturbation? The updated result is carried forward as the input to the next step, until the historical configuration exactly matches the target, yielding the final prediction. Empirically, DeepImagine consistently outperforms direct one-step prediction across several off-the-shelf LLMs, with further gains when multiple imagination pathways, initiated from different historical anchors, are aggregated. We also construct natural counterfactuals augmented with synthetic reasoning traces and train a family of specialized language models, each dedicated to learning one factor's local counterfactual transition. Integrating these learned local operators into DeepImagine yields substantial improvements over general-purpose LLM baselines. Our findings position stepwise counterfactual imagination, distinct from both correlational prediction and explicit structural causal modeling, as a promising direction for clinical trial outcome prediction. All code, training scripts, and evaluation scripts are available at \href{https://github.com/deepimagine-counterfactual/DeepImagine}{https://github.com/deepimagine-counterfactual/DeepImagine}.

cs.CL

CT Open: An Open-Access, Uncontaminated, Live Platform for the Open Challenge of Clinical Trial Outcome Prediction

Scientists have long sought to accurately predict outcomes of real-world events before they happen. Can AI systems do so more reliably? We study this question through clinical trial outcome prediction, a high-stakes open challenge even for domain experts. We introduce CT Open, an open-access, live platform that will run four challenge every year. Anyone can submit predictions for each challenge. CT Open evaluates those submissions on trials whose outcomes were not yet public at the time of submission but were made public afterwards. Determining if a trial's outcome is public on the internet before a certain date is surprisingly difficult. Outcomes posted on official registries may lag behind by years, while the first mention may appear in obscure articles. To address this, we propose a novel, fully automated decontamination pipeline that uses iterative LLM-powered web search to identify the earliest mention of trial outcomes. We validate the pipeline's quality and accuracy by human expert's annotations. Since CT Open's pipeline ensures that every evaluated trial had no publicly reported outcome when the prediction was made, it allows participants to use any methodology and any data source. In this paper, we release a training set and two time-stamped test benchmarks, Winter 2025 and Summer 2025. We believe CT Open can serve as a central hub for advancing AI research on forecasting real-world outcomes before they occur, while also informing biomedical research and improving clinical trial design. CT Open Platform is hosted at $\href{https://ct-open.net/}{https://ct-open.net/}$

cs.AI

EvidenceBench: A Benchmark for Extracting Evidence from Biomedical Papers

We study the task of automatically finding evidence relevant to hypotheses in biomedical papers. Finding relevant evidence is an important step when researchers investigate scientific hypotheses. We introduce EvidenceBench to measure models performance on this task, which is created by a novel pipeline that consists of hypothesis generation and sentence-by-sentence annotation of biomedical papers for relevant evidence, completely guided by and faithfully following existing human experts judgment. We demonstrate the pipeline's validity and accuracy with multiple sets of human-expert annotations. We evaluated a diverse set of language models and retrieval systems on the benchmark and found that model performances still fall significantly short of the expert level on this task. To show the scalability of our proposed pipeline, we create a larger EvidenceBench-100k with 107,461 fully annotated papers with hypotheses to facilitate model training and development. Both datasets are available at https://github.com/EvidenceBench/EvidenceBench

cs.CL