Paper detail

$\texttt{AMEND++}$: Benchmarking Eligibility Criteria Amendments in Clinical Trials

Clinical trial amendments frequently introduce delays, increased costs, and administrative burden, with eligibility criteria being the most commonly amended component. We introduce \textit{eligibility criteria amendment prediction}, a novel NLP task that aims to forecast whether the eligibility criteria of an initial trial protocol will undergo future amendments. To support this task, we release $\texttt{AMEND++}$, a benchmark suite comprising two datasets: $\texttt{AMEND}$, which captures eligibility-criteria version histories and amendment labels from public clinical trials, and $\verb|AMEND_LLM|$, a refined subset curated using an LLM-based denoising pipeline to isolate substantive changes. We further propose $\textit{Change-Aware Masked Language Modeling}$ (CAMLM), a revision-aware pretraining strategy that leverages historical edits to learn amendment-sensitive representations. Experiments across diverse baselines show that CAMLM consistently improves amendment prediction, enabling more robust and cost-effective clinical trial design.

preprint2026arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.