Den här översättningen är inte klar ännu. Den här sidan är just nu på engelska.

Gå till den engelska sidan

Cure My Disease

Don't miss your cure!

 Log in / Sign up

Can a simple rubric catch harmful medical advice?

NCT ID NCT07823062

Diagnosis Sponsor: Stanford University Source: ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

What the study statuses mean

This study's is highlighted.

Recruitment status, easiest to join first

Recruiting now
This trial is taking on new participants right now.
Not yet recruiting This study
Registered, but not yet taking participants.
By invitation only
Not open to general applications. Only people the study team invites can take part.
Paused
Paused for now. It may or may not start again.
Ongoing
Running, but no longer taking on new participants.
Completed
The trial has finished. Results may not be published yet.
Stopped early
Stopped early, before it reached the end. That can be for many reasons, including safety.
Cancelled
Cancelled before anyone took part.

Expanded access (not trials)

Expanded access
Not a trial. This treatment can be requested outside a study, case by case, for people who qualify.
Expanded access (paused)
Not a trial. The treatment can normally be requested outside a study, but is unavailable right now.
Expanded access (ended)
Not a trial. The treatment could once be requested outside a study, but no longer can.
Approved
The treatment has been approved, so it is available normally rather than through this programme.

When the status isn't known

Details not published
The full record has not been published yet, so there is little to show here.
Status unknown
This status has not been confirmed recently, so it may be out of date.

First seen Sep 16, 2026 · Last updated Sep 17, 2026 · Updated 1 time

Summary

Researchers at Stanford University are testing whether a tool called the NOHARM rubric can accurately rate the potential harm in medical responses written by artificial intelligence or physicians. About 80 board-certified specialists from 10 fields will review reconstructed clinical cases and rate the greatest possible patient harm as none, mild, moderate, or severe. The study compares these expert ratings with the rubric's ratings to see how well they agree. The goal is to find out if the rubric is a reliable way to identify harmful medical advice.

What this could mean

Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only, not medical advice or a prediction.

Active substance
NOHARM harm-rating rubric, a tool for classifying potential patient harm in clinical responses
What this could lead to
If the rubric proves accurate, it could become a standard way to flag harmful medical advice from AI or clinicians, helping prevent patient harm.
What could go wrong
The rubric may not match specialist judgment well, and the study uses reconstructed cases rather than real patient interactions, so results might not reflect real-world performance.

This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.

Study facts

What this study's own registry entry says, in plain language.

Participants

About 80 people

The number the study aims to enrol. It can still change while the study runs.

Expected to start

Sep 2026

An estimate. Start dates often move.

Expected to finish

Oct 2026

An estimate. End dates often move.

Lead sponsor

Other sponsor

The registry's catch-all category, for sponsors it does not file as a company, a government agency, or a research network.

Who can take part

This study's own entry requirements. Only the study team can say for certain whether you qualify.

Who is studied

Licensed or registered attending- or consultant-level physicians practicing in one of the medical specialties represented in the NOHARM benchmark in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, or Australia. Participants will be recruited through professional networks, institutional communications, and collaborating clinical communities and will complete specialty-matched rating activities remotely.

Ages

18 years and older

Sex

Anyone

Healthy volunteers

Accepted

You do not need to have the condition being studied to take part.

Show the full entry requirements

Copied word for word from the study's registry entry, so the wording is the study team's rather than ours.

Inclusion Criteria: * Licensed or registered physician in good standing * Attending- or consultant-level physician actively practicing in allergy and immunology, cardiology, dermatology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology, infectious disease, nephrology, neurology, or pulmonology * Practicing in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, or Australia * Assigned clinical materials match the physician's specialty * Able to read and respond in English * Access to a computer with a stable internet connection * Willing and able to complete at least one remote specialist-rating engagement of approximately three hours Exclusion Criteria: * Does not meet the professional, career-level, specialty, geographic, or credential-verification requirements above * Prior involvement with assigned cases, responses, or rubric information that could compromise independent rating * Unable to complete the remote rating activities in English * Unable or unwilling to follow the independent-rating procedures * For validation-stage assignments, participation in the rubric-revision process

Get updates

Get notified about this study

Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for Medical errors are added.

Vår säkerhetsrekommendation!

Genom att skicka in godkänner du våra Användarvillkor

As listed by the trial registrant

The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.

Medical errors Patient safety

How to take part

Only the study team decides who joins. These are the ways to reach them.

  1. The official record

    ClinicalTrials.gov lists the study team's own contact details, including names and phone numbers. We don't republish those.

    Open the record ↗

  2. A doctor treating you

    A doctor who knows your case can contact a study site on your behalf, and can tell you whether this study is worth pursuing at all.

More trials for these conditions

Other studies related to the condition(s) this trial covers.